Yamato, waste of time?

Discussion in 'General' started by Spartan089, Jan 18, 2008.

  1. Mark

    Mark Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Posts:
    457
    Location:
    Swansea, MA
    nice targets for airplanes and a subs (no allied capt had the balls to go battle ship to battle ship with them) that aside, since niether one are major players in this hobby the yamatos if built well are good ships.
     
  2. warspiteIRC

    warspiteIRC RIP

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Posts:
    756
    Location:
    Annapolis, MD
    The ones in the IRC are very effective. But they are HEAVY!!! Most are launched from a trailer.
     
  3. rarena

    rarena Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Posts:
    1,221
    There the allied captains are a little braver.....[;)]
     
  4. squires

    squires Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Posts:
    103
    i remember one of the yamato battleships was sunk by a submarine and 2 destroyers. i dont think it was armed at the time or manned it was just moving ports. maybe i am thinking of the wrong ship
     
  5. Mark

    Mark Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Posts:
    457
    Location:
    Swansea, MA
    not the battle ships but the carrier Shinano in its incompleat state state that was sunk by the USS Archerfish sub (all by its self, no destoyers)
     
  6. Gascan

    Gascan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Posts:
    920
    I'm looking through Conways '06-'21 and I don't see any Japanese ship Asakari (side note: every consonant in Japanese must be followed by a vowel, except the letter N). I see:

    Kaga class battleships
    Kaga, Tosa
    44,200T full load, 760ft LOA
    5x2 16" guns, 8 torpedo tubes
    11" belt armor, 26.5 knots

    Kii class battleships
    Kii, Owari, No.11, No.12
    48,500T full load, 820ft LOA
    5x2 16" guns, 8 torpedo tubes
    11.5" belt armor, 29.75 knots

    Amagi class battlecruisers
    Amagi, Akagi, Atago, Takao
    47,000T full load, 826ft LOA
    5x2 16" guns, 8 torpedo tubes
    10" belt armor, 30 knots

    Any one of those ships matches the description you gave. I remember seeing photos of a ship with five twin turrets on the AusBG website that I didn't recognize. Perhaps someone built one of these ships and made up a name, since none of them were completed to the original specs (or you don't remember the name correctly)

    http://media.ausbg.org/photos/2005/900by600/ausbg_0501_nat_200.jpg
    Looking at that photo, it may be an Amagi or a Kii (which was based on the Amagi). Unfortunately, I can't find the other photos I remember. Personally, I think that five turrets is really a bit much. It's a nice broadside, but it's very spread out, and takes more individual cannons. It could really use a Morgret Command Control System to get all those cannons on target.
     
  7. squires

    squires Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Posts:
    103
    amagi was it, i think they were completed as aircraft carriers or something, after the war
     
  8. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,306
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    The Amagi and Akagi were two battlecruisers which were supposed to be converted to carriers due the the Washington Treaty, much like the American Lexington and Saratoga were. The great Japanese earthquake damaged the Amagi hull beyond repair, and she was replaced with the Tosa class battleship Kaga's hull instead.

    Another CV Amagi was completed during the war to the Unryu class, based off the Hiryu design, but totally unrelated to any of the gunship conversions.
     
  9. CURT

    CURT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Posts:
    5,707
    Location:
    St. John's Newfoundland , Canada
    [:)]In CWC-X the Yamato class will be carrying 9 cannons and 1 pump. Tripples all around. Still won't change the fact that it is a huge target and has many many limitations. But for set up it is a straight forward ship to setup. Ballast is not an issue.. use batteries.
    If you lift weights to keep in shape the ship is not a problem to carry. Just carry it to and from the car without the batteries inside and learn to lift the thing with your legs and not your back.

    ADM STOKOMOTO
     
  10. FirePowerDan

    FirePowerDan RIP

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Posts:
    320
    To me the Yamato is what is called the bully of the pond. Takes a licken but,keeps on ticken. One was built in 1/72nd scale and now rests in a museum on the former Naval base in Alameda,California. I wish I had the website handy so you could see it. Mr. Ron Beets the first president of WWCC made this model. He also had a 1/144th scale Yamato also.
     
  11. CURT

    CURT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Posts:
    5,707
    Location:
    St. John's Newfoundland , Canada
    Sweet. Wish I could see a pic of that model.

    ADM STOKOMOT
     
  12. JohnmCA72

    JohnmCA72 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Posts:
    681
    I've been thinking about this since it was posted. At risk of being banned from this forum, I feel compelled to respond:

    I think that this comment is nothing short of an insult to those VERY brave men who risked their lives & did their duties in WWII, to make it safe for you & your ilk to have the freedom to make flippant comments like this now.

    First, in a 1:1 scale navy, captains can't just take their ships wherever they want to, like we can with our toys. They go where and when they are ordered to by their fleet commanders. I defy you to document one single instance where a USN ship's commander lacked the "balls" to take his ship into harm's way, when ordered to do so. I'll make it easy, & not limit it to WWII.

    Second, to engage Yamato or Musashi, a USN commander would have had to sail his ship into a Japanese naval port, because that's where they spent most of their time. Japan didn't have enough fuel to send them out on enough training missions to keep them sharp, let alone into combat often enough to be useful. Those ships were a colossal waste in terms of any resource you can think of - money, raw materials, time, lives - when you consider what they achieved for Japan vs. what they cost.

    Credible post-war analysis show that, despite their larger diameter, the 18" Japanese AP shells were roughly equivalent to the US 16" in terms of hitting power. The USN's top-of-the-line battleships did them better in speed, armor, and fire control. Not to mention, with plenty of available fuel, the USN's battleships could train effectively so that when the time came for a battle they'd be ready for it, something that the IJN could only dream of. Barring some pretty good luck (which does happen from time to time), a USN battleship task force could have attacked an IJN battleship task group from a position of its choosing, rain down accurate fire from ranges and at rates that the IJN couldn't match, reducing them to flaming wrecks for very little casualties in return. For an example of how approximately evenly-matched USN & IJN battle fleets would likely fare (actually, the USN fleet was low on AP ammunition due to earlier action), review the battle of Surigao Strait, exactly 64 years ago yesterday (25-October-1944).

    If you doubt the "balls" of any USN warship commanders, I suggest that you review the Battle off Samar (same date as Surigao Strait). Any US battleship commander of the time would have similar training and sense of duty to those commanders of Task Unit 77.4.3, who took on a much-superior Japanese force so aggressively that the Japanese commanders were made to "blink" and break off the battle, even though they had the upper hand. I'd expect that any USN battleship captains of the day would have had similar levels of "balls", and would have done their duties, taking their ships into harm's way.

    [Edited. G.M. Violated civility protocol]

    I'm sorry if this post offends anybody, but Mark's comment offended me.

    JM
     
  13. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    Well spoken, sir.
     
  14. boater26

    boater26 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Posts:
    37
    I second that.
     
  15. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,306
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    "First, in a 1:1 scale navy, captains can't just take their ships wherever they want to, like we can with our toys. They go where and when they are ordered to by their fleet commanders. I defy you to document one single instance where a USN ship's commander lacked the "balls" to take his ship into harm's way, when ordered to do so. I'll make it easy, & not limit it to WWII.

    Second, to engage Yamato or Musashi, a USN commander would have had to sail his ship into a Japanese naval port, because that's where they spent most of their time. Japan didn't have enough fuel to send them out on enough training missions to keep them sharp, let alone into combat often enough to be useful. Those ships were a colossal waste in terms of any resource you can think of - money, raw materials, time, lives - when you consider what they achieved for Japan vs. what they cost."

    I agree with John on the spirit of his post, if not the historical accuracy.

    In all actuality, on at least one occassion, the USN battleline, Taskforce 34 had the opportunity to engage at least one of the Yamato class battleships in a surface action. The this was at the battle of the Philippine Sea (NOT Leyte Gulf). ADM Spruance asked VADM Willis A "Ching" Lee if he wished to engage the IJN in a night surface action. VADM Lee declined action feeling that his battleships were not well enough trained for a NIGHT engagement. They had been spending most of their time practicing AA defense, and in a night action, Lee felt they were not properly trained. Spruance left the enemy ships to Mitscher's TF38 fast carriers.

    For a gunnery officer such as Ching Lee, declining a battleship action like that I think takes a greater amount of balls then actually taking the mission. He had spent his entire adult life training and preparing for that one moment, a moment that quite likely given the direction of the war would never again come (and didn't), and declined because he felt it was the RIGHT thing to do. In the RN he'd have been cashiered out for lack of aggressiveness. Lee was anything but timid, and you have to respect the fact that he put the lives of his men over his own personal glory.

    For the record, I think that an Iowa would have pasted the Yamato, and the USN thought she was only armed with 16-inch guns so they certainly weren't afraid of her.
     
  16. GregMcFadden

    GregMcFadden Facilitator RCWC Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Posts:
    2,370
    keep it civil guys. And I do agree with you john.
     
  17. Bob

    Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Posts:
    1,282
    Remember Lee had the Washington & So Dak off Gaduacanal vs a larger Jap TF. He lost 3 or 4 DDs to torpedos. It was the Torps the US captains feared, and for good reason, they were really good torps and the Japs knew how to use them. The whole Jap plan was to get the US fleet into a night battle, as they felt they had better odds. Early in the war the Japs did own the night, but their lack of training, lost of vet crews and the better US radar flipped the odds. Lee declined surface battle because A. the air attack was "Safer", B if that attack did not stop the Japs he could use his battle line to finish them off, durring the day at long ranges. Lee, like any comander had the safety of his men in mind. Had Halsy left him behind Lee would have finished the Jap TF in the morning in a battle that would have been one for the books.
    He had the balls to do it, and the brains to know when and how it should be done.
     
  18. squires

    squires Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Posts:
    103
    i think we got off topic here, i hope that no one ever meant insult to commanders and men at arms from either side.
     
  19. Mark

    Mark Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Posts:
    457
    Location:
    Swansea, MA
    no insult meant, and none taken. just words gents thats all. that aside just build the boats you like, others have said it before that it is the captains skill that will dictate the out-come of the battle you just need to know how to play to your advantage
     
  20. JohnmCA72

    JohnmCA72 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Posts:
    681
    Wrong: Whether meant or not, insult was definitely taken. You own a big apology to those who had the "balls" to risk their lives for our freedom, as well as to those who benefit from their sacrifice.

    JM