Author Topic: Yamato (Read 2596 times)

Movie · « **Reply #15 on:** March 25, 2007, 01:52:51 PM »

when the yamato sunk it took like 5 waves or 4 cant remember of torpedo and dive bombers. plus the japs manually aimed the 18in. guns

RAIDER14 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 25, 2007, 01:55:36 PM »

I would rather have the Bismarck

Movie · « **Reply #17 on:** March 25, 2007, 01:58:14 PM »

either one is good very good ships. LOOK AT THIS BEAUTY

Karnak · « **Reply #18 on:** March 25, 2007, 03:10:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rino
How hard do you need to hit to sink a converted merchant ship? Or
did the Yamato class engage something heavier that I'm not aware of?

The shells were designed to face more resistance. They were punching in one side and out the other without exploding because the target wasn't tough enough, aka, had no armor.

Rino · « **Reply #19 on:** March 25, 2007, 04:03:44 PM »

You'd think sailors with the amount of experience the Japanese had
would have realized that carriers are not heavily armored.

Saxman · « **Reply #20 on:** March 25, 2007, 07:08:46 PM »

Yamato herself didn't get an opportunity to engage the carriers. IIRC she turned to evade the torpedoes fired by USS Johnston and for some reason withdrew and didn't reenter the fight. It was her cruiser and destroyer escorts that manage to (BRIEFLY) fire on the jeep carriers.

Sikboy · « **Reply #21 on:** March 25, 2007, 07:47:16 PM »

Personally, I'd rather have some Marus more than any other ship.

And I'm a Navy geek.

-Sik

VooWho · « **Reply #22 on:** March 25, 2007, 08:19:13 PM »

I would rather see a German E-boat. I tired of our PT-Boat. I want something else to sail around. Or a U-Boat?

Karnak · « **Reply #23 on:** March 25, 2007, 08:53:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rino
You'd think sailors with the amount of experience the Japanese had
would have realized that carriers are not heavily armored.

They had a lot more armor than converted freighter.

VooWho · « **Reply #24 on:** March 25, 2007, 08:57:59 PM »

The Japanese were will skilled at naval night attacks. Those long, shortly closed eyes of theirs collected so much light from the day, at night it turned there eyes green like cats and they could see in the dark.

Stoney74 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 25, 2007, 09:40:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VooWho
The Japanese were will skilled at naval night attacks. Those long, shortly closed eyes of theirs collected so much light from the day, at night it turned there eyes green like cats and they could see in the dark.

How 'bout you edit yourself quickly and think again before posting something so blatantly derrogatory?

Rino · « **Reply #26 on:** March 25, 2007, 09:42:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
They had a lot more armor than converted freighter.

Ok, which is it? They weren't armored enough to stop AP rounds from
passing through the ship or they were much more heavily armored than
the ships they were built from?

As Sax pointed out, I was mistaken about the Yamato engaging the
jeep carriers. I still wonder how it can be determined that the 18" shells
can hit harder than the US 16" ones if they were never actually used
against warships?

From the battle at Guadalcanal, we know the 16" ones worked pretty
well against Japanese BBs.

Karnak · « **Reply #27 on:** March 25, 2007, 11:55:09 PM »

We never hit a single Japanese BB with a 16" shell.

We hit lots of Japanese BCs that we called BBs with 16" shells.

Look at the armor on a Iowa or King George V or Bismark or Yamato or Nagato and then look at the armor on the Hood, Repulse and Kongo class ships.

The Hood and Repulse are bluntly BCs. The Kongo's armor is about the same and far below the others I listed.

Just because we called them BBs doesn't make them BBs.

And you seem to have mistaken what I said earlier. There was no contradiction. They were shooting at jeep carriers, completely unarmored. Purpose built CVs had armor. Not BB type armor, but armor.

As to the 18" guns in comparison to the 16", well, we know the range and weight of the shell. Guess which one is heavier? Remember, plunging fire is what kills BBs.

Keiler · « **Reply #28 on:** March 26, 2007, 03:26:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
The shells were designed to face more resistance. They were punching in one side and out the other without exploding because the target wasn't tough enough, aka, had no armor.

Nop, All shells on BBs carried explosves, be they AP or not. The Mk5 AP of the Iowa carried a charge of 40.5 lbs of HE, the HC round 153.5 lbs of HE.
It took about half an inch of steel at obligue angles to set off the fuze.

Matt

Karnak · « **Reply #29 on:** March 26, 2007, 12:06:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Keiler
Nop, All shells on BBs carried explosves, be they AP or not. The Mk5 AP of the Iowa carried a charge of 40.5 lbs of HE, the HC round 153.5 lbs of HE.
It took about half an inch of steel at obligue angles to set off the fuze.

Matt

Yes, I know they were all explosive. The hulls on the jeep carriers were too thin to set off the 18" shells.