Action Stations

Raptor is correct. The man was Admiral Yamamoto Isoruku, the mastermind behind the Pearl Harbor attack. The battleship was the YAMATO, the largest battleship ever built. She was sunk during the Okinawa campaign by US carrier aircraft, hit by some 7 torpedos and 13 bombs. Her sister ship MUSASHI was a tougher kill, absorbing 17 torpedos and 20 bombs before succumbing earlier during the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

As for Battler Hawke's comments, the only large vessel that I know of that was sunk by a single hit in WWII was the Russian battleship MARAT, which indeed took a bomb from a German Stuka dive bomber down the stack, and exploded. The pilot of the Stuka was Hans Rudel, recognized as one of the greatest Stuka pilots and tank-killers of the war.

History lesson over. ;)
 
Originally posted by OriginalPhoenix
Raptor is correct. The man was Admiral Yamamoto Isoruku, the mastermind behind the Pearl Harbor attack. The battleship was the YAMATO, the largest battleship ever built. She was sunk during the Okinawa campaign by US carrier aircraft, hit by some 7 torpedos and 13 bombs. Her sister ship MUSASHI was a tougher kill, absorbing 17 torpedos and 20 bombs before succumbing earlier during the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

As for Battler Hawke's comments, the only large vessel that I know of that was sunk by a single hit in WWII was the Russian battleship MARAT, which indeed took a bomb from a German Stuka dive bomber down the stack, and exploded. The pilot of the Stuka was Hans Rudel, recognized as one of the greatest Stuka pilots and tank-killers of the war.

History lesson over. ;)
Click to expand...

I ment that it was a lucky drop in the smoke stack that did her in not the only bomb. thanx for the info.she also is in space cruiser yamato(aka starblasers in the US.if you want i can write down the info from the book
 
Originally posted by Battler Hawke
I ment that it was a lucky drop in the smoke stack that did her in not the only bomb.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. She was simply overwhelmed by a mass air strike, and pounded into submission. Bomb down the stack or not, she had no chance of survival. Her escorting light cruiser and four of the eight destroyers were also sunk. I've never seen any mention that her sinking was due to a bomb down the stack.

Bit of trivia: The YAMATO actually fired her 18.1 inch main battery -- the largest ever mounted on a sea-going vessel -- at the approaching US aircraft.

Further info on the YAMATO-class: There were initally seven ships planned for the class. Only YAMATO and MUSASHI were completed as battleships. After the loss of four carriers at Midway, one hull was completed as the carrier SHINANO, which was sunk on her shakedown trials by the US sub ARCHERFISH, without having ever launched an aircraft from her deck. Japan's shortage of steel and oil halted any further development of the ships.

Originally posted by Battler Hawke
thanx for the info.she also is in space cruiser yamato(aka starblasers in the US.if you want i can write down the info from the book.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, Starblazers. I have several of the DVDs of the first couple of seasons' episodes. One of them also has a deleted scene which flashes back to the WWII sinking of the battleship, as told by one of the SB characters. Fun show.
 
Well, Yamato\Musashi (alternate names for Japan if I recall) were tough kills...then again, so are oil tankers.
 
Originally posted by Bob McDob
Well, Yamato\Musashi (alternate names for Japan if I recall) were tough kills...then again, so are oil tankers.
Click to expand...
Yamato is actually ancient Japan.
Musashi I don't know. I tried to look it up, but without an exact Kana spelling I can't find it.
 
The IJN named battleships Japanese provinces. Carriers were typically named for dragons or birds, though there were exceptions (the SHINANO, carrier sister to YAMATO and MUSASHI, is an example).
 
Originally posted by OriginalPhoenix
After the loss of four carriers at Midway, one hull was completed as the carrier SHINANO, which was sunk on her shakedown trials by the US sub ARCHERFISH, without having ever launched an aircraft from her deck.
Click to expand...
Although I don't particularly enjoy history, I remember reading about that in the feature section of my first Reader's Digest. Just thought I'd share that with you. :)
 
We never get to learn about fleet battles here in the UK. At the moment I'm studing A level History and all we are doing is the Political system of the Nazi Government. And its really boring.:mad: REALLY boring!!:mad: :mad:
 
Ah yes the really odd pace of school learning were they pick and choose what you learn,to be honest I was self taught in history the libraries were my heaven studied great battles and their equipment.I slept through motivations and goals of tyranny as it was called in FL schools.
 
When you get right down to it though, those motivations and goals are probably more important if we want to understand what happened, and prevent it from happening again.

Best, Raptor
 
Originally posted by OriginalPhoenix


As for Battler Hawke's comments, the only large vessel that I know of that was sunk by a single hit in WWII was the Russian battleship MARAT, which indeed took a bomb from a German Stuka dive bomber down the stack, and exploded. The pilot of the Stuka was Hans Rudel, recognized as one of the greatest Stuka pilots and tank-killers of the war.

History lesson over. ;)
Click to expand...

didn't the bismark only hit the hood with 1 shell in the magazine?
 
Originally posted by Napoleon


didn't the bismark only hit the hood with 1 shell in the magazine?
Click to expand...

Yep, your right,, but the Hood was poorly armoured, and had a weak spot around the magazine.

Pow!......Boom!
"looks like we're swimming home lads"
 
You are correct LOAF, most of the books I have here at home agree that Hood recieved 2-5 shots around the mainmast area ,but whatever the amount it caused the magazine to detonate. And you are also correct Raptor, as the old saying goes those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
 
Oh, boy...chance for more history lessons!

First off, the HOOD was definitely hit by more than one shell (from both BISMARCK and her cruiser escort, PRINZ EUGEN).

However, current evidence suggests that it was not a direct hit which penetrated armor to explode her magazines. Instead, most experts now contend that a relatively superficial hit (perhaps even from PRINZ EUGEN's 8-inch cannon) early in the battle started a fire amidships near her boat deck. The fire spread to the torpedo magazines in that area, and it was that magazine which initially exploded, breaking the ship in half. When the smoke and debris from the explosion cleared, the stern was already gone, the bow was vertical and going under. Even the Germans were amazed at how quickly the HOOD succumbed, leaving only 3 survivors alive.

This concept of a fire would jive with German sailors' reports, many of whom do not recall either of the German ships actually hitting the HOOD just prior to her exploding (though the BISMARCK had indeed bracketed her moments before). These same witnesses do claim, however, to have seen a large fire on the upper decks amidships of the HOOD before she exploded.

FWIW, while the HOOD indeed lacked effective armor to protect from plunging shell fire, the BISMARCK herself employed a poor armor scheme as well -- it was based on designs of pre-WWI dreadnaughts. While extremely stable and seaworthy, she was prone to having systems knocked out, a fact evidenced in her final battle with the Royal Navy, when her main battery and navigation systems were destroyed fairly early on.

Lesson complete.... ;)
 
Originally posted by OriginalPhoenix

Bit of trivia: The YAMATO actually fired her 18.1 inch main battery -- the largest ever mounted on a sea-going vessel -- at the approaching US aircraft.
Click to expand...

I find that extremely funny. I wonder how remotely close they came to hitting something? :D One can only imagine what the pilots thought as a giant 18-inch shell went whistling past...
 
Originally posted by Backslash
I find that extremely funny. I wonder how remotely close they came to hitting something? :D One can only imagine what the pilots thought as a giant 18-inch shell went whistling past...
Click to expand...
One can only be thankful that the Japanese didn't have proximity shells for the 18-inch guns. Those could have been quite devastating.

As it is, I don't recall ever seeing any claims that the big guns took down any attacking planes.
 
Those 18" shells the Japanese used were stupid anyway. The 16"s the USA used were much more effective due to the higher muzzle velocity of the smaller round.

Our battleships are still incredibly lethal, though we barely ever use them these days. Too expensive to operate, especially when other ships can accomplish the task just as well.

I should think our existing battlewagon fleet would become quite valuable once railgun technology is perfected to a military standard, and could replace the 16" cannons currently on our ships.

Such weaponry would afford equal range to cruise missiles at a much lower cost.
 
Originally posted by Frosty
Those 18" shells the Japanese used were stupid anyway. The 16"s the USA used were much more effective due to the higher muzzle velocity of the smaller round.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say they were stupid or ineffective. A bit of overkill, perhaps, but at range the YAMATO-class battleships would have been quite competitive with the IOWA-class contemporaries. And the YAMATO-class vessels offered better armor than the IOWA-class. Of course, the latter had the speed and agility advantage.

Originally posted by Frosty
Our battleships are still incredibly lethal, though we barely ever use them these days. Too expensive to operate, especially when other ships can accomplish the task just as well.
Click to expand...
We don't use our battleships at all anymore. Shortly after the Gulf War, the IOWAs were again decommed and placed in standby inactive mode.

Originally posted by Frosty
I should think our existing battlewagon fleet would become quite valuable once railgun technology is perfected to a military standard, and could replace the 16" cannons currently on our ships.

Such weaponry would afford equal range to cruise missiles at a much lower cost.
Click to expand...
I doubt that rail guns will be mounted on the old battleships. However, it is quite likely that new vessels will eventually mount them. In fact, the future Navy may well be trimaran designs armed with rail guns and missile banks. Speed and hitting power are expected to be the order of the day.

Ironically -- and slightly off-topic -- I'm currently working on a WC assault gunship which uses rail gun technology as its primary weapon. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top