Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by neil hilton »

Heres another thought. Yamato was sunk by bombs and torpedos, the torpedos 200lg warhead causing the fragile welds between the armour plates to crack. The explosion of a heavy calibre shell warhead is probably not enough but what of the kinetic enengy imparted by the hit itself? even if it doesn't penetrate. Thats a lot of kinetic energy the hull has to disperse into the water, with weak welds they could split surely.
If so I can see why the Japanese were reluctant to risk her in a surface action, they were scared she might fall apart!
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by lwd »

neil hilton wrote:...If so I can see why the Japanese were reluctant to risk her in a surface action, they were scared she might fall apart!
I"ve seen little (actually no) evidence that this was the case. Indeed there's a very strong argument that her fuel consumption combined with her place in the final battle pretty well explain the activities of her and her sister.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by Bgile »

neil hilton wrote:Heres another thought. Yamato was sunk by bombs and torpedos, the torpedos 200lg warhead causing the fragile welds between the armour plates to crack. The explosion of a heavy calibre shell warhead is probably not enough but what of the kinetic enengy imparted by the hit itself? even if it doesn't penetrate. Thats a lot of kinetic energy the hull has to disperse into the water, with weak welds they could split surely.
If so I can see why the Japanese were reluctant to risk her in a surface action, they were scared she might fall apart!
Try comparing what it took to sink Yamato or Musashi with what it took to sink PoW. It may help to put things in perspective.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by lwd »

That's not a particularly enlightening comparison. POW could have taken a lot more if they had kept that shaft immobile. Yamato and Mushahi on the otherhand were hit with a fair amount of overkill. It would be like throwing in the Shinano into the comparison.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by Bgile »

lwd wrote:That's not a particularly enlightening comparison. POW could have taken a lot more if they had kept that shaft immobile. Yamato and Mushahi on the otherhand were hit with a fair amount of overkill. It would be like throwing in the Shinano into the comparison.
You can argue that PoW could take as much damage as Yamato if you want to. I don't happen to feel that way, and I don't think you do either. I think you are just arguing because you like to argue.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by Dave Saxton »

neil hilton wrote:Heres another thought. Yamato was sunk by bombs and torpedos, the torpedos 200lg warhead causing the fragile welds between the armour plates to crack. The explosion of a heavy calibre shell warhead is probably not enough but what of the kinetic enengy imparted by the hit itself? even if it doesn't penetrate. Thats a lot of kinetic energy the hull has to disperse into the water, with weak welds they could split surely.
If so I can see why the Japanese were reluctant to risk her in a surface action, they were scared she might fall apart!
Well the Yamatos used very minimal welding (so did Prince of Wales) and all important joints were riveted. The joint between lower belt and main belt wasn't welded according to drawings I have on hand. I don't find the Yamato's underwater protection system poor. They knew it wasn't the ideal design in terms of torpedo protection but it was the best they could do while utilizing the thick lower belt in the design. They used extensive counter flooding features and extensive compartmentation in compensation. Against shells the side protection design provided good ballistic protection and superior protection to what could otherwise be below the belt hits. Some experts feel that this extra concern about such relatively rare hits wasn't really that big of a deal because in most cases the shells would have to travel through too much water and this would greatly reduce the kinetic energy of the shell and probably cause it to behave erratically anyway. The riveted joints eventually loosened and began to leak after repeatly taking such a brutal beating, but normally they provided an adequately tough and rugged construction.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
tnemelckram
Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:45 am

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by tnemelckram »

As I posted earlier, use the two knot KGV speed advantage to stay out of range until you can maneuver one ship on each of Yamato's hindquarters and then start shooting. Only the three stern guns can bear on you freely while the six up front either can't or are severely impaired. If Yamato turns, run, but maintain contact, and try again. Basically try to badger Yamato to death in a long stern chase where you batter her upperworks and try to soft kill her.

Hopefully Yamato won't be very close to where she is going because the extended time will also give her time to get to a place of safety for her or greater danger for you. She's a real fuel hog so maybe she will be constrained in making numerous turns to bring all her guns to bear or otherwise constrained or disadvantaged by this.. But then on the other hand, the big problem with the KGV's is limited range as well. And of course, this all depends on the British Admiral actually knowing she's a fuel hog with, and protected against, 18 inch guns!

Base your hopes on the "N Squared Law", cases Two, Four and Five. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-076.htm Also hope Chrchill doesn't accuse you of cowardice if she gets away and find further use for you just like Admiral Byng. .
User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by neil hilton »

Welded and riveted joins were the norm at this time (sort of belt and braces approach). Weak welds result in the rivets taking all the strain which is inferior. The IJN brass knew this (their prize flagship has a glass jaw) its understandable they would try to keep her out of harms way as much as possible. Imagine the morale hit if Yamato were sunk as quickly as Hood, (Yamato was the ancient name for Japan itself! the morale hit would be worse than Hoods sinking).
Saving her for the mythical 'decisive battle' sounds to me like a justification. Anybody know what Yamamoto wrote in his secret diary?
Of course this is all just speculation but isn't that what we do here?
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by Bgile »

neil hilton wrote:Welded and riveted joins were the norm at this time (sort of belt and braces approach). Weak welds result in the rivets taking all the strain which is inferior. The IJN brass knew this (their prize flagship has a glass jaw) its understandable they would try to keep her out of harms way as much as possible. Imagine the morale hit if Yamato were sunk as quickly as Hood, (Yamato was the ancient name for Japan itself! the morale hit would be worse than Hoods sinking).
Saving her for the mythical 'decisive battle' sounds to me like a justification. Anybody know what Yamamoto wrote in his secret diary?
Of course this is all just speculation but isn't that what we do here?
As far as I know, the Japanese didn't consider Yamato to be a weak design overall and neither do most of the people who have studied her. You seem to be the exception with your "glass jaw" idea, and you seem to be implying she was as easy to sink as Hood. The design had a flaw in it's torpedo defense system, but it still proved to be very resilient and there is no indication at all that there was a flaw in her ability to withstand shell hits. As near as I can tell she was the best protected battleship ever built, and the Denmark strait battle would have been quite different had she been there on the British side.

I don't think I've ever seen a "perfect" design. They all seem to have been compromises with flaws.
User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by neil hilton »

Bgile wrote:
neil hilton wrote:Welded and riveted joins were the norm at this time (sort of belt and braces approach). Weak welds result in the rivets taking all the strain which is inferior. The IJN brass knew this (their prize flagship has a glass jaw) its understandable they would try to keep her out of harms way as much as possible. Imagine the morale hit if Yamato were sunk as quickly as Hood, (Yamato was the ancient name for Japan itself! the morale hit would be worse than Hoods sinking).
Saving her for the mythical 'decisive battle' sounds to me like a justification. Anybody know what Yamamoto wrote in his secret diary?
Of course this is all just speculation but isn't that what we do here?
As far as I know, the Japanese didn't consider Yamato to be a weak design overall and neither do most of the people who have studied her. You seem to be the exception with your "glass jaw" idea, and you seem to be implying she was as easy to sink as Hood. The design had a flaw in it's torpedo defense system, but it still proved to be very resilient and there is no indication at all that there was a flaw in her ability to withstand shell hits. As near as I can tell she was the best protected battleship ever built, and the Denmark strait battle would have been quite different had she been there on the British side.

I don't think I've ever seen a "perfect" design. They all seem to have been compromises with flaws.
I'm not saying Yamato would have been as easy to sink as Hood. I'm saying if she did have a design flaw the Japanese may have kept her from surface engagements for fear of her loss (morale loss amongst the sailors and population). If she did have a design flaw, (weak welds) she may have been vulnerable in surface to surface battle against another BB. The fact that she never engaged another BB in surface action (as far as I know) means that this is a possibility. Were the welds tested against heavy calibre shells? I do not know, if somebody does know please comment. She was weak to torpedos, whether this means she was also weak to shells is the question. I'm just saying its a possibility.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by Dave Saxton »

@ Neil, I think your mistaken that Yamato's structural integrity was compromized by weak welds. Strictly speaking Yamato's hull wasn't of welded construction. Japanese accounts make clear that Yamato was of almost entirely of riveted construction. Somebody mentioned once that 18,000 welding rods were used on Yamato. But as somebody with experience in welding I can assure you that 18,000 welding rods is nothing, especially given a project of the scale of a battleship. The Japanese construction steel, identical to British Ducol or D steel, was of poor weldability. The British were forced to limit welding to the the lateral structural members and not to longitudinal members when using Ducol. They eventually went to a modified Ducol, DW, post 1943, as the Royal Navy put pressure on the British ship yards to move toward all welded construction. Earlier weld failures on some IJN cruisers and destroyers caused the IJN to call for very little welding in their designs. The engineers would certainly not utilize joint designs that utilized rivets and welding together on the same exact joint seam.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by neil hilton »

Dave Saxton wrote:@ Neil, I think your mistaken that Yamato's structural integrity was compromized by weak welds. Strictly speaking Yamato's hull wasn't of welded construction. Japanese accounts make clear that Yamato was of almost entirely of riveted construction. Somebody mentioned once that 18,000 welding rods were used on Yamato. But as somebody with experience in welding I can assure you that 18,000 welding rods is nothing, especially given a project of the scale of a battleship. The Japanese construction steel, identical to British Ducol or D steel, was of poor weldability. The British were forced to limit welding to the the lateral structural members and not to longitudinal members when using Ducol. They eventually went to a modified Ducol, DW, post 1943, as the Royal Navy put pressure on the British ship yards to move toward all welded construction. Earlier weld failures on some IJN cruisers and destroyers caused the IJN to call for very little welding in their designs. The engineers would certainly not utilize joint designs that utilized rivets and welding together on the same exact joint seam.
What you're saying makes sense. The construction steel was hard to weld.
What I'm referring to was the weldabilty of the armour plates, the accounts I've read state that the upper and lower belt armour plates were welded and riveted because the welds were of poor quality. (Yamatos armour was of a new production and I think this is what made them so difficult to weld). This was the reason why the torpedos which sank her split the join between the upper and lower belt causing uncontrolable flooding. Like Titanics long narrow wound. I do not know if this is true or not, I've read it and not read anyhting to prove otherwise. I do not know if it is provable or not.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by Bgile »

neil hilton wrote: What you're saying makes sense. The construction steel was hard to weld.
What I'm referring to was the weldabilty of the armour plates, the accounts I've read state that the upper and lower belt armour plates were welded and riveted because the welds were of poor quality. (Yamatos armour was of a new production and I think this is what made them so difficult to weld). This was the reason why the torpedos which sank her split the join between the upper and lower belt causing uncontrolable flooding. Like Titanics long narrow wound. I do not know if this is true or not, I've read it and not read anyhting to prove otherwise. I do not know if it is provable or not.
I've read a Japanese account of her sinking and I don't recall any uncontrollable flooding. I believe that flooding boundaries were successfully established. There was eventually an accumulation of hits which caused more flooding than could be compensated for by counterflooding, and the ship lost stability and capsized. No ship ever built could be expected to survive the punishment she was subjected to.

Don't get me wrong. There were flaws in her torpedo protection. It's just that they weren't so bad that it didn't still take many torpedoes to sink her. Probably not as many as actually hit her, but she still seems to have held up rather well overall. No single torpedo hit would have resulted in her sinking.
User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by neil hilton »

Bgile wrote:
neil hilton wrote: What you're saying makes sense. The construction steel was hard to weld.
What I'm referring to was the weldabilty of the armour plates, the accounts I've read state that the upper and lower belt armour plates were welded and riveted because the welds were of poor quality. (Yamatos armour was of a new production and I think this is what made them so difficult to weld). This was the reason why the torpedos which sank her split the join between the upper and lower belt causing uncontrolable flooding. Like Titanics long narrow wound. I do not know if this is true or not, I've read it and not read anyhting to prove otherwise. I do not know if it is provable or not.
I've read a Japanese account of her sinking and I don't recall any uncontrollable flooding. I believe that flooding boundaries were successfully established. There was eventually an accumulation of hits which caused more flooding than could be compensated for by counterflooding, and the ship lost stability and capsized. No ship ever built could be expected to survive the punishment she was subjected to.

Don't get me wrong. There were flaws in her torpedo protection. It's just that they weren't so bad that it didn't still take many torpedoes to sink her. Probably not as many as actually hit her, but she still seems to have held up rather well overall. No single torpedo hit would have resulted in her sinking.
Thats what I meant by uncontrollable flooding, too much for the ship to cope with and thus capsize. I did not mean out-of-control flooding. I've done DC and if its too much to cope with its uncontrolable. A question of interpretation I suppose. ;)
A single torp hit would only open a small length of crack, compartmentalisation would isolate that but multiple torps would open a large length of crack or many small lengths. As you said accumulated damage caused extensive or uncontolable (too much to handle) flooding.
The point is if multiple torp hits can do this. Would the kinetic shock from multiple heavy calibre AP shell hits or the explosive shock form multiple HE shell hits do the same?
I do know that heavy calibre shells that near miss can cause seems to pop in ships just because of the shock, but these are small scale and the ships pumps can cope with it easily.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by lwd »

Bgile wrote:
lwd wrote:That's not a particularly enlightening comparison. POW could have taken a lot more if they had kept that shaft immobile. Yamato and Mushahi on the otherhand were hit with a fair amount of overkill. It would be like throwing in the Shinano into the comparison.
You can argue that PoW could take as much damage as Yamato if you want to.
But I wasn't
I don't happen to feel that way, and I don't think you do either.
You are correct but that wasn't the point I was making.
I think you are just arguing because you like to argue.
No. I was pointing out that your analogy was flawed. It doesn't mean your conclusions were. It's hard to draw comparisons between cases where one ship is hit by what can be described as easily be described as a fair amount of "overkill" and the other ship was sunk due in large part due to a damage control failure. Especially when you are talking about torpedoes where the old saying about real estate holds true (i.e. "location, location, location"). A good example of this is look how many torpedoes it took to sink Hornet yet I don't really think I would like to make a case for her having a better TDS than either of these battleships.
Post Reply