Naval History Forums

But seriously folks I wonder if someone can tell us what role was envisioned by the designers for this class of ships. In WW 1 battleships were formed in a line to slug it out with the presumably same size line of the enemy. I know that the Japanese had some vague idea of a "final" battle like Tushima where the whole battle fleet was concentrated. In WW 2 both sides used battleships in pairs if available at all to combat there own kind. I think its interesting to note that I think 4 Yamato class ships were planned but after Midway the Shinano was completed as a carrier and the fourth ship canceled.

19kilo wrote:
A pretty bold statement about a ship that ran away from a group of CVEs, DDs and DEs when it had them at its mercy.

That's not the ship's fault, but it's commanding officer's.

@KEn

I've seen a documentary once with several Yamato survivors. They remembered their ship with great pride, and said it was built to engage and destroy enemy battleships...

Production priorities shifted during the war. For the Pacific theater, the carrier was clearly the primadona, while the battleships were assigned with support roles.
Let's remember Montana class was cancelled also.

It's interesting that both USN and IJN designed super-battleships (Yamato and Montana), which could only have been of use in giant naval battles, fought "the old way", mainly with guns and torpedoes. The number of ships was also eerily similar: 4 ships of Yamato class, 5 of Montana class...

Ken Thompson wrote:In the battle off Samar when the Japanese fleet turned around one of the gunners on a CVE is reported to have said: "Hey they're getting away".

I also liked "We're suckering em into 40mm range"!

Well its too bad they got away but late in the battle more planes from the CV's started to arrive. The Yamato sailors may remember their ship with pride but in the end it achieved nothing but allow us fliers some good target practice. Its the sailors of Taffy 3 that should have pride in what they achieved, even if the Yamato got away they sank 3 heavy cruisers and blew the bow off the fourth. The destroyer sailors were particularly effective way beyond the call of duty.

Ken Thompson:

But seriously folks I wonder if someone can tell us what role was envisioned by the designers for this class of ships. In WW 1 battleships were formed in a line to slug it out with the presumably same size line of the enemy. I know that the Japanese had some vague idea of a "final" battle like Tushima where the whole battle fleet was concentrated. In WW 2 both sides used battleships in pairs if available at all to combat there own kind. I think its interesting to note that I think 4 Yamato class ships were planned but after Midway the Shinano was completed as a carrier and the fourth ship canceled.

You are correct: the Japanese doctrine called for a decisive battle which will take place in a time and an area of their choosing. Followning this then they decided that the enemy will be numerical superior, due to the result of the 1921 Treaty and those that followed. In order to check this problem they came with the battleship killers or Yamato Class.
Of course today we know they were mistaken and this conception seemed laughable to us. However this doctrine produce the most lethal battleships, to the extent that when Yamato was to be hunted the US Navy decided not to engage with their carrier escorts, the Iowas, and sent the naval aviation of it.

Ken Thompson wrote:Well its too bad they got away but late in the battle more planes from the CV's started to arrive. The Yamato sailors may remember their ship with pride but in the end it achieved nothing but allow us fliers some good target practice. Its the sailors of Taffy 3 that should have pride in what they achieved, even if the Yamato got away they sank 3 heavy cruisers and blew the bow off the fourth. The destroyer sailors were particularly effective way beyond the call of duty.

Destroyers. In my opinion the most effective and usefull warsips of the war!

Destroyers. In my opinion the most effective and usefull warsips of the war!

Well I agree with that, particularly the Fletcher class.

alecsandros wrote:

19kilo wrote:

synthesim wrote:In a battleship vs. battleship contest, Yamato remains undefeated for all time.
Sunk, yes, but nevertheless undefeated and on the record as unafraid of a showdown.

A pretty bold statement about a ship that ran away from a group of CVEs, DDs and DEs when it had them at its mercy.

That's not the ship's fault, but it's commanding officer's.

Although I don't disagree about Admiral Khuritsa - sorry, I meant Kurita (honest) - I also remember that Yamato and six other intact battleships ran away from two depleted carriers in June, 1942.

Rick Rather wrote:

alecsandros wrote:...

synthesim wrote:In a battleship vs. battleship contest, Yamato remains undefeated for all time.
Sunk, yes, but nevertheless undefeated and on the record as unafraid of a showdown.

That's not the ship's fault, but it's commanding officer's.

Although I don't disagree about Admiral Khuritsa - sorry, I meant Kurita (honest) - I also remember that Yamato and six other intact battleships ran away from two depleted carriers in June, 1942.

I certainly wouldn't put it that way but then I wouldn't consider the Yamato "undefeated" either. For one thing pure battleship on battleship action just didn't happen. Especially in WWII. In any case Kurita was hardly running from two depeleted carriers but from superior forces that included a goodly number of carriers and battleships not to mention cruisers and destroyers. Then of course if you want to call Yamato undefeated based on that criteria most of the US and British battleships fit the bill as well. For that matter Tirpitz and at least some of the Italian battleships as well.

sorry but i cannot agree to label a ship that never really did anything useful in combat as the greatest. the largest fine. heaviest armed ok, biggest waste of resources damn straight. she wasn't even a good AA ship since she lacked decent radar and most of her AA weapons were the poor 25mm.

whatare you calling a good AA weapon? by what means the japanese 25 mm was a poor one

Thorsten Wahl wrote:whatare you calling a good AA weapon? by what means the japanese 25 mm was a poor one

http://www.combinedfleet.com/25_60.htm
goes into some of it stating:

It was also a very mediocre weapon, being hampered by slow training and elevating speeds (even in power-operated triple mounts), excessive vibration and muzzle flash, and the fact that the ammunition feed was via a 15-round fixed magazine which necessitated ceasing fire every time the ammo had to be changed.