Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!srcsip!rutgers!att!cbnews!military@att.att.com From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Yamato's Last Mission Message-ID: <5408@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 5 Apr 89 02:20:40 GMT References: <5005@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5077@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5333@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 113 Approved: military@att.att.com From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) In article <5333@cbnews.ATT.COM> ssc-vax!wanttaja@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Ronald J Wanttaja) writes: > > >Academically, one wonders how the US Battlewagons would have done against >Yamato's task force. Task Force 54 consisted of Idaho, New Mexico, >Tennessee, West Virginia, Maryland, and Colorado, with six cruisers and 21 >destroyers. I don't have a Jane's handy, but the US BBs are refered to as >"elderly." Rather. All of them were laid down before the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921. Some pertinent date (from Breyer, _Battleships and Battlecruiser_, op.cit.) Idaho New Mexico 32000 tons, 12x14"/50 in 4 triple turrets, 21 kts, 14" belt, 6" + 1.5" deck Tennessee 32300 tons, 12x14"/50 in 4 triple turrets, 21 kts, 14" belt, 5" + 1.5" deck Colorado West Virginia Maryland 32600 tons, 8x16"/45 in 4 double turrets, 21 kts, 16" belt, 4" + 2" deck Yamato 65000 tons, 9x18.1"/45 in 3 triple turrets, 27 kts, 16" belt (sloped 20 degrees from vertical) belt, 8" deck. >Yamato was probably twice as large as the elderly >US battleships. Yamato's 17 inch guns far outranged the US artillery. A >naval maxim states that a fleet of ships is only a little stronger than its >largest ship... but surely odds of 6:1 in battleships and cruisers, and 3:1 >in tin cans must speak for something. Any wargamers out there ever set >this one up? One would think the Yamato would have accounted for a couple >American destroyers, at least. It's very hard to say. Certainly, Yamato's escorts (CL Yahagi and 8 destroyers) would not have lasted long. Yamato herself was a tough nut to crack, however; her main belt was some 410mm thick, sloped at 20 degrees from vertical; her armored deck was 200mm thick. I would estimate that her deck was vulnerable to US 16" fire (16"/45's) beyond 30000 meters, and her sides were vulnerable within 10000m. Turned around, the Maryland's 16" belt (with no slope) would be vulnerable under 20,000m, and her deck at under 30000m. The 14" belts of the older ships would be vulnerable out to some 30000m. Another important consideration was brought up some years ago in "Warship International", in an article considering a hypothetical gun duel between Yamato and Iowa. (Unfortunately, I'm unable to find the correct issue for reference). The author pointed out that US intelligence of the time estimated that Yamato carried 16"/45's, and was armored similarly to our North Carolina class (inferior to the Marylands, BTW). With this information in hand, the captain of the Iowa could choose the "perfect" distance from which to fight; the zone in which he would be mostly immune to Yamato's fire, while she would be vulnerable to Iowa's. This range could be reached and maintained thanks to Iowa's superior speed (32 knots, 27 for Yamato). Unfortunately, given the facts about Yamato's actual gunnery and protection, that range would, in fact, leave Iowa vulnerable to belt penetrations by Yamato, while Yamato was "immune" to Iowa's gunfire. This could well have told in our hypothetical case. Estimating the Yamato's guns as 16"/45's, one would want to move closer; this gun has better deck penetration and inferior belt penetration to the 18.1". The result would be to make oneself increasingly vulnerable to Yamato's fire. Too, the Yamato had superior speed, and full knowledge of her opponents capabilities. It is not unreasonable to suspect that Yamato's captain would attempt to maintain a range of about 20000 meters, squarely in his immune zone, while delivering crippling penetrations to the US ships. However, I feel that the total weight of fire from the US BB's would tell, and probably do so quite quickly. 24 14" guns and 24 16" guns, all radar-directed, would quickly score hits. Judging by the combat between Bismarck and Rodney/King George V, even rather superficial hits could have crippling effect. For example, in that action Bismarck, the first few hits included a 16" shell which burst on the upper deck between the two fore turrets, putting both out of action; an 8" hit which wrecked the forward director, and a 14 or 16" shell which destroyed the forward fire-control station. Survivors reported that no penetrations of the Bismarck's main belt occurred; yet the ship was wrecked beyond any capacity to fight. I believe that this same fate would have been Yamato's; further, barring some measure of luck, none of the US battleships would have been sunk, or even seriously damaged. The death toll of American sailors would, quite probably, have exceeded that of the pilots of the aircraft which actually did sink Yamato. Torpedoes would no doubt have been needed to sink Yamato, but I would guess that she would be rendered incapable of combat before said torpedoes would be launched. Just my opinion; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker moderator, sci.military military@att.att.com (614) 860-5294 "War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied." - Sun Tzu