Talk:Japanese battleship Yamato

storage

These are the former references that weren't cited. I'm storing them here for future use.

further reading

• Yoshida Mitsuru, Requiem for Battleship Yamato. A detailed description of the ship's final voyage; Mitsuru was the only surviving bridge officer.
• Janusz Skulski, The Battleship Yamato. - Conway Maritime Press, 1988 - ISBN 0851774903. Part of the "Anatomy of the Ship" series.
• Russell Spurr's A Glorious Way To Die. A description of Yamato’s final days as seen from the perspective of not only her officers and men, but also the accompanying ships of her task force and the American forces who destroyed her.
• Siegfried Breyer, Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905–1970 (Doubleday and Company; Garden City, New York, 1973) (originally published in German as Schlachtschiffe und Schlachtkreuzer 1905–1970, J.F. Lehmanns, Verlag, Munchen, 1970). Contains various line drawings of the ship as designed and as built.
• Robert Gardiner, ed., Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships 1922–1946, (Conway Maritime Press, London, 1980)
• William H. Garzke, Jr., and Robert O. Dulin, Jr., Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II, (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 1985)
• James D. Hornfischer, The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors : The Extraordinary World War II Story of the U.S. Navy's Finest Hour, (Bantam; Reprint edition, 2005). Detailed story of the Battle off Samar (although light on details from the Japanese perspective) and the most intensive treatment available of Yamato’s only surface action.
• "Then the Americans started to shoot with machine guns at the people who were floating, so we all had to dive under." Naoyoshi Ishida; Keiko Bang (September 2005). Survivor Stories: Ishida. Sinking the Supership. NOVA., Hara, Tameichi (1961). "The Last Sortie", Japanese Destroyer Captain. New York & Toronto: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-27894-1. , and Yoshida, Mitsuru; Richard H. Minear (1999). Requiem for Battleship Yamato. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-544-6. .
• Axelrod, David (Writer and director) (2005). NOVA, Sinking the Supership (Video documentary). Boston: WGBH Educational Foundation and Bang Singapore Private Limited. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/supership/.  — One-hour documentary on Operation Ten-Go
• Joseph Pires, USS Bennington Historian
• Evans, David C.; Mark R. Peattie (2008). Kaigun : Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887-1941. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0870211927. 
• Yoshimura, Akira (2008). Battleship Musashi: The Making and Sinking of the Worlds Biggest Battleship. Tokyo: Kodansha International. ISBN 4770024002. - Includes information on Yamato's design and construction.
• Stille, Mark (2008). Imperial Japanese Navy Battleships 1941-45. Osprey. ISBN 1846032806. 
• Watts, Anthony J. (1971). The Imperial Japanese Navy. Doubleday. ISBN 0385012683. 

Torpedo armament?

I've currently read in a - not very professional - German ship encyclopedia that Yamato was armed with 10 torpedo tubes. I did not believe it as I've never found this in another reliable source, but I got sceptic when I came over this photo of the famous 1/10 Yamato model in Kure. You can see five strange openings on the ship's port side which also exist (I've seen it on another photo) on the starboard side. Those strange openings could be surface torpedo tubes - and there are 10 of them. Is it possible that Yamato actually had torpedo tubes? And what about that openings? Greetings, Ogbader (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely possible, and it wouldn't surprise me. The Japanese had a habit of putting torpedoes (as well as their crappy 25mm autocannons) on practically anything that floated. In some cases, this was particularly useful; it made their cruiser squadrons insanely dangerous and justifiably feared. I've heard of torpedoes on the original configurations for the Kongo and Fuso battleships, but I've never read anywhere of torpedoes on Yamato. That said, I'll go back and check my sources again to be sure. I somehow doubt it had them, but I would not be entirely surprised if I was wrong. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 16:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick answer! As I said, no reliable source I know about the Yamato tells about a torpedo armament, but I'm very interested in what you'll find out because I do not own very much literature about her. Most is about Japanese navy in general. Greetings, Ogbader (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. None of my sources mention it. I'll ask User:Cla68. He's got a lot more resources than I do on the Imperial Japanese Navy. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, meanwhile I've got some news: I found a hint in a quite professional German book on the Japanese navy (it is certainly not a Yamato book, it tells the navy's story from 1868 until today): Joachim Wätzig: Die japanische Flotte (The Japanese navy), Berlin 1996. There is a chart comparing the most advanced battleships in WW2 on p. 186, and it says "8 or 10" torpedo tubes for Yamato. Greetings, Ogbader (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no torpedoes. Janusz Skulski's drawings in his book Anatomy of the Ship: The Battleship Yamato, shows six openings, not five, although one is slightly forward of the other five. And the spaces abreast the rear 155mm turret were for boat stowage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither Watts nor Jentschura's technical books on the IJN's inventory list the Yamato battleships as having torpedo tubes. Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the answers! Greetings Ogbader (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that in table 7, page 15, Janusz Skulski mentions that "Lastest sources suggest 6-10 torpedo tubes, possibly underwater." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.14.166 (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Armament

"Yamato's main battery consisted of nine 46 cm (18.1 in) 45 Calibre Type 94 naval guns — the largest calibre of naval artillery ever fitted to a warship"

I could be wrong, but for handguns and such calibre is the same as bore diameter, for naval guns it is the bore to barrel length ratio. Several U.S. battleships had 50 calibre naval artillery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.209.21 (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

For naval guns both usages are correct, if confusing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle participation

What is the convention used to state that a ship took a part in a battle? Nagato is a good example of a vessel that on many occasions was a part of the battlefleet, was even the Japanese flagship, and yet is said to only have participated in the battle of Leyte Gulf ("She saw action only once, during the Battle of Leyte Gulf") and at that she is only said to have participated in the battle off Samar. Did Atago participate in the battle of Leyte Gulf? I would think the answer would be yes, and if so would it not make sense to list the battles the vessel participated in, whether or not the ship fired its main armament or took hits from an enemy vessel? Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The above point being that though the Atago did not fire her main guns in the battle of Leyte Gulf, she was part of the center force and was sunk in the battle. Certainly the sailors that died there or that were pulled out of the sea would feel they had participated.

Super battle ships

There is some back and forth on the wording of the lead. What is the contention? Certainly the Yamato class were the largest in terms of tonnage, but not the longest, as that goes to the Iowa class I believe. Is "large" tied to the ships length? I believe that is the convention, as that was how liners that competed for the distinction in the inter-war years were described, the largest liner being considered the one with greatest length. As to powerful vs. powerfully armed, I would prefer wording them the most powerfully armed, but the heaviest gunned might be the best descriptor. Most powerful, would that be determined on the basis of the caliber of her main armament, the metal weight of her broadside, or the rate of weight put out over a period of time? It seems to me these terms are discussed somewhere, and we should find a key and come to a consensus. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In theory, "most powerful" normally talks about the weight of an individual shell ( in the case of the Yamato class, it would be the 3,219 lb APC shells ) and how much kinetic energy it had ( which also means how much powder it uses ), because conventional theory of the time held that the the more of both that you had, the better it would get through armor, but conventional theory was not always correct. The USN 16" 2,700 lb super heavy AP shells, when fired from the 16"/50 Mk 7 guns of the Iowa class, were nearly equal in penetration to the IJN 18" shells of the Yamato, and the fact that the Iowa class could fire faster, at all ranges except those in which the 18" guns of the Yamato class had little to no change in elevation, means that the throw weight of the Iowa class, was nearly equal to that of the Yamato class - in fact, at long and extended ranges the throw weight of the Iowa's could exceed that of the Yamato class, when the ROF of the Yamato guns would drop to as low as 1.5 rounds per min, because of the length of time to train the guns to the proper elevation for loading and then train them back to shooting elevation. The tipping point for the Yamato is when her average rate of fire increases to 1.7 rounds a minute, where the throw weight difference of the 2 classes is only 650 lbs - less than 1/4 the weight of a single USN 16" shell.
In short between the two classes, it is not going to be a matter who actually has the biggest guns, but who gets the most hits, because powerful guns do not mean much if you miss with them, and the Yamato class had 3 strikes against it - less than good fire control, armor of somewhat poorer quality ( even if it did have more armor to begin with than the Iowa class ), and a crew that did not have much in the way of actual combat time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory JH (talk • contribs) 07:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, I thought that was the case, that rate of fire gave an edge to the Iowas, and if you were to factor in accuracy with the Iowas radar guided fired control system the advantage would clearly be to the Iowas. For the purpose of this article though I do believe it is best to leave it as it is, as that would be a lot of information to try to convey and there would be a certain amount of controversey to sort through.Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be much of an edge for the Iowas. I believe it was the US Naval Academy or some other dept of the USN, that ran several war game scenario's between the Iowa and Yamato, and essentially the results came out that the Yamato would likely be sunk, but the Iowa would be scrapped ( and may not even make it back to port because she would be so heavily damaged ).

The Iowa's biggest advantage, would be her speed. They had enough, that they could hold the Yamato at arms length, and barring something like a Bismarck hit, the Iowa could then break action, if needed - unless the Yamato could pull of an ambush, something along the lines of what happened to Taffy 3. The Iowa's biggest problem is not being able to range on the Yamato at long range, but just bracketing the Yamato due to simple shell dispersion - it took the Sharnhorst 3 salvo's to hit HMS Glorious at 26,250 - 26,500 yrds, which is on record as the longest hit in ship vs ship shooting. Accuracy for the Iowa's, in WW2, was such that against a Bismarck size target, that at 30,000 yrds, there was only a 2.7% chance of hit on a broadside target and a 1.4% chance of hit on a end on target, and the Yamato is not all that much bigger - so you are looking at maybe 30 hits for all 16" ammunition on board, not just armor piercing shells, so unless there were some lucky hit's on the Yamato's superstructure that took out the range finder, which would have allowed the Iowa to get closer, there would have been a real risk of the Iowa running out of ammunition, in an extended range fight - the good news is that the Iowa carried about 30% more ammunition that the Yamato, so the IJN could afford an extended range fight even less than the USN could. --Gregory JH (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

'heaviest and most powerfully armed battleships ever constructed' or 'largest and most powerful battleships ever built'?

I've noticed the ongoing edit war over this sentence fragment in the lede. Although there seems to be little difference between the two, reading around including elsewhere on this page I believe the first version may be a better reflection of consensus. The second is given as a direct quotation. However, the potential issue with quoting a single source in the lede is that unless that source is a perfect reflection of all available sources, which can be difficult to establish, it affords the opinion of one writer an unduly prominent position. This doesn't really apply in the article body where there is space to discuss nuances in what sources claim. For that reason I've removed both quote and source. Hopefully this can signal an end to the edit warring; if not, and discussion to resolve this is not forthcoming, article protection can be considered as a next step. EyeSerene^talk 11:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)