1/200 Trumpeter IJN YAMATO - issued by MRC/Gallery Models

[lmagna]

3 hours ago, scrubbyj427 said:

But there is no doubt they were the most powerful battleships ever built, it was also quite a task to finally get them to go down according to us navy pilots. 

Not certain if you are referring to the Iowa's or Yamato's in this sentence but if you are referring to how much damage the Musashi absorbed before being sunk one has to look at the fact that she took torpedo hits on both port and starboard sides causing her to automatically counterflood and pretty much maintain an even platform that provided a more stable gun base. This was taken into account after the battle and the same mistake was not made on the Yamato. It took much less ordinance to sink the Yamato as the vast majority of hits were on the port side.

It is my understanding that the Iowa's had a slightly better armor for facing heavy and light cruisers but that the Yamato's armor was based on the armor used by the British and was more effective against Battleship sized guns. The US Navy was never really happy with the armor or the guns on the Iowa's and the next generation of US Battleships were intended to address  many of these shortcomings. With the extra thickness at almost every level of the armor on the Yamato it is claimed that it is the only battleship armor that was impervious to penetration by any battleship gun in the world. I am still curious if this would have held true in a battle like the First Navel Battle of Guadalcanal where the opening ranges were less than two miles and decreased from that when the battle turned into a melee almost immediately and some ranges came down to a matter of yards before opening up again as the ships passed. What would have happened if the ships we are discussing, (Or much more possible, the USS Washington and South Dakota) had been involved with Adm Lee in charge instead of Scott.

 

Like is said above the US had a much better fire control system than the Japanese but in the case of Adm. Scott he didn't use what he had to much advantage at all at Guadalcanal. The Iowa's were slightly faster but I do not believe this was ever much of a factor in any of the major fleet engagements of the WWII Pacific theater. The US had a much better damage control system in place and sometimes this resulted in US ships remaining fighting or surviving when some Japanese ships were destroyed. One must also remember that the Yamato was destroyed by one of the main magazines blowing up. One of what should have been the best protected locations on the ship. 

 

In the battle off Samar The Yamato fired a number of times at the Gambier Bay, hitting her at least once I believe, (I would have to dig out a couple of my books to get the exact details). I am also not completely certain but I think she fired on the USS. Johnson before she turned and ran from Torpedoes for such a distance that she was unable to re-engage for the rest of the battle. Again it turned out that the use of the weapon outweighed the weapon's potential. 

 

I think that Roger summed it up for both the use of the carrier and the battleship. WWII proved almost beyond doubt that neither ship could operate safely without the homogenous cooperation of the other, but used together in ways not fully contemplated prior to the war they were still a devastating weapon.     

Edited June 29, 2022 by lmagna

[scrubbyj427]

Apologies for my poor grammar but yes, I meant the Yamato’s. I wish I could find the article

I read that compares the two but you pretty much summarized it. Nevertheless, I find both classes of battleships fascinating and worthy of the attention they receive.
I’ve been casually looking at building a Yamato for years, not sure if I want to build Musashi or Yamato but I’m leaning towards Musashi. These 1/200 kits with all their PE are very very tempting but my heart tells me that the fleet scale 1/96 is the direction I need to go, with where these 1/200 kits are with all the add ons and details they actually aren’t far off in price between the two sizes. 

[lmagna]

1/96 would make a monster! Not just in size but in weight as well!

 

I think that if I was to build a BB of that time period it would have to be the USS Washington, but my real love would still have to be many of the pre-dreadnaught and early dreadnaught ships. Somehow they just seem more stately even though they were far inferior in every way.

[thibaultron]

Accourding to an article in Naval Proceeding in the 80s. The Japanese ships used WWI era technology for armor and shells, giving for thickness of armor per inch less protection than the American WWII era battleship armor. The shells also had less penetrating power. So the larger guns on the Yamato, and thicker armor only had better performance at long range where the larger heavier shell would have better performance in plunging shots. The US ships had better radar controlled firing systems, and better speed, allowing them to better set the field of battle. At closer ranges the US ships armor and shells held the advantage. But we will never know for sure.

[Bill Morrison]

21 hours ago, Roger Pellett said:

I just finished reading Paul Kennedy’s new book Victory at Sea.  Buy it for Ian Marshall’s great paintings, not Kennedy’s narrative.  He spills a huge amount of ink about how the battleship was obsolete.  IMHO the carrier was a great offensive weapon but was vulnerable defensively.  I believe that the integrated task group; carriers, destroyers, and big guns- battleships and cruisers were a major reason for the US Navy’s success. And, to defeat the Kamikazes, these big armored ships made great platforms for anti aircraft guns.  With this mix of ships, the navy had the confidence to go anywhere.

 

Question:  At Samar did Yamato actually fire her main battery at the American Taffy task force?

 

Roger 

It's interesting to me that no one mentions submarines when discussing the overall success of the U.S. Navy in WWII, but they sank more Japanese tonnage than the rest of the fleet combined.  That said, before we talk about the obsolescence of these ships, we should take into account that they could and did inflict more damage on enemy shore installations than did aircraft. The Iowa class ships were highly valued by both Army and Marine Corps units in Korea and the North Vietnamese said that the New Jersey was hugely destabilizing.  That speaks volumes to me.

 

Bill

[lmagna]

On this thread we have been talking (mostly) about battleships and the change, (Or not) in their value. The results of especially the US submarine effort in the Pacific was so effective that it caused much of the inability for the Japanese to risk or use ships like the Yamato and Musashi. I have even read that by the end of the war the Japanese were reduced to using unprocessed oil from the Dutch East Indies in their ships, increasing the potential of fire and other issues due to it's unstable properties. Not certain if it was true as I think I only read it once somewhere. The cost in lives in the submarine service was high but so were the returns. 

[scrubbyj427]

17 hours ago, lmagna said:

1/96 would make a monster! Not just in size but in weight as well!

 

I think that if I was to build a BB of that time period it would have to be the USS Washington, but my real love would still have to be many of the pre-dreadnaught and early dreadnaught ships. Somehow they just seem more stately even though they were far inferior in every way.

Oh Washington or North Carolina are two of my favorites. Probably my first battleship model as a kid was North Carolina, i would love to build her in 1/96 or even 1/48. I agree on the dreadnaught as well. Ahh too many models and never enough time.

[Doug P.]

On 6/23/2022 at 7:46 PM, Roger Pellett said:

What do people find so fascinating about these ships?  Compared to the Iowa’s they are rather ugly with their humpbacked sheer.  Both were sunk by aircraft and neither distinguished itself in battle.  And, they didn’t represent what many would consider to be a good cause.

 

My last comment would apply to Bismarck and Tripitz too.

 

Roger

Bad cause, granted.  Sunk by aircraft, yes, in overwhelming numbers, 350+ USN aircraft in multiple waves, no effective escorts, no JPN air cover.  Same for Bismarck and Tirpitz vs the RAF.  If Iowa class battleships had encountered similar disadvantages, what then?  Fact is, head to head, absent any aircover, the Yamato would have demolished any of the Iowa class battleships, and I say this as a true-blue American patriot and fan of the Iowas.  Yamato deserves the mantle as the ultimate battleship, and it took an enormous advantage in air and sea resources to finally sink her.  Let's give the Japanese their due as building and deploying the ultimate incarnation of the battleship.  Will be happy to build her as a 1/200 model now that the flawed Nichimo version has finally been supplanted.

[Theodosius]

I build the Nichimo Yamato some decades ago as an RC ship:

 

On the water, this are scanned analog photos, so no good quality

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sold it some years ago because of storage and dispaly problems, but nevertheless, this was an impressive model. 

 

Can't wait to see the build logs of the new and improved trumpeter one 🙂

[Roger Pellett]

Lou,

 

I have also read about the Japanese having to use raw crude oil as fuel.  This was a major factor in the loss of a carrier at the Battle of Philippine Sea.

 

As it comes out of the ground, crude oil is a mixture of several organic compounds.  Some of these are light enough to vaporize at atmospheric pressure.  The refining process removes these light fractions which are sold as byproducts.  

 

At Philippine Sea, a Japanese carrier was torpedoed by an American Submarine and a fuel bunker ruptured releasing these volatile fractions within the ship.  An ignition source touched them off and the resulting explosion caused the loss of the ship.

 

Roger

[lmagna]

Thank you Roger. I read it somewhere in some obscure article or book. The reference mentioned both the desperate the need the Japanese were for fuel by using it in the first place due to as you say unstable properties, and that the Dutch oil from Indonesia is so pure right out of the ground it could be used in this manner.

 

Now with your confirmation, I can feel more confident in making reference to this with more certainty of it being fact not just conjecture. 

 

Thanks

[mikegr]

12 hours ago, Roger Pellett said:

Lou,

 

I have also read about the Japanese having to use raw crude oil as fuel.  This was a major factor in the loss of a carrier at the Battle of Philippine Sea.

 

As it comes out of the ground, crude oil is a mixture of several organic compounds.  Some of these are light enough to vaporize at atmospheric pressure.  The refining process removes these light fractions which are sold as byproducts.  

 

At Philippine Sea, a Japanese carrier was torpedoed by an American Submarine and a fuel bunker ruptured releasing these volatile fractions within the ship.  An ignition source touched them off and the resulting explosion caused the loss of the ship.

 

Roger

I have heard also about making alcohol from potato processing that was used to fly their training planes. 

 

Not sure about the carrier you mentioned. Perhaps Taiho or Shinano.

Both they were easily sunk but a single torpedo hit. This is caused also by lack of training in damage control. In contrast to American crews IJN sailors used to spend their training time on more traditional practices

[lmagna]

Many of the Japanese ship losses, especially aircraft  carrier losses, were at least exasperated by poor damage control and fuel handling practices.

 

Not certain if those people on the picture are naval or army but it does look like they are practicing Bayonet drills. Their Marine and Army troops were known to use them in Kamikaze charges.  

[mikegr]

59 minutes ago, lmagna said:

 

 

Not certain if those people on the picture are naval or army but it does look like they are practicing Bayonet drills.

Not even.

This is Kendo

[lmagna]

6 hours ago, mikegr said:

Not even.

This is Kendo

With rifle butts attached to the sticks and bumper balls on the tips? 

Edited July 1, 2022 by lmagna

[mikegr]

20 minutes ago, lmagna said:

With rifle butts attached to the sticks and bumper balls on the tips? 

Yes it is a bayonet fight variation, called Jukendo in fact

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jūkendō

 

But my wonder is different.

Are these big kits really complete?

Or extra PE are required to get the most details out of them?

Edited July 1, 2022 by mikegr

[Roger Pellett]

The carrier that I referred to was Taiho.

[gak1965]

On 6/27/2022 at 9:23 PM, lmagna said:

Not certain if you are referring to the Mogami or the Yamato.

The Mogamis were designed as a result of the limitations imposed by the London treaty which left the Japanese with a relatively small amount of cruiser tonnage and a desire by the Naval staff to nonetheless cram as many weapons onto the platform as possible. They used new welding technologies instead of riveting (in common with lots of navies) to save weight but the first ship (Mogami) was a disaster when it went into sea trials. It was badly overweight, top heavy (and so had stability problems) and the hull was so badly bent during the trials that it affected the ability to train the guns 

 

Eventually, the first two were reconstructed and the third and fourth built to a revised standard based on the reconstructed earlier units. The whole story (and how the Royal, French, Italian, US and Japanese navies designed interwar ships) is told in a set of books written by John Jordan, called (with excellent truth in advertising) "Warships after Washington", and "Warships After London". The books are interesting from the standpoint of how each Navy responded to the challenges of meeting their military needs within the framework of a treaty that put constraints on what they could design and build. Let's just say that the Mogamis weren't the only poor design to come out of the five countries due to the combination of treaty and technological limitations of the day.

 

George 

 

[Doug P.]

On 6/23/2022 at 8:34 PM, mtaylor said:

Possibly "reputation" and the myths that boosted them?  Back in my control line flying days, I went for the German ones.  Maybe it was the colors and the looks?

 

On 6/23/2022 at 7:46 PM, Roger Pellett said:

What do people find so fascinating about these ships?  Compared to the Iowa’s they are rather ugly with their humpbacked sheer.  Both were sunk by aircraft and neither distinguished itself in battle.  And, they didn’t represent what many would consider to be a good cause.

 

My last comment would apply to Bismarck and Tripitz too.

 

Roger

We Americans do love our Iowa-class battleships, all of which survived WWII relatively unscathed.  Beautiful, powerful, and fast.  However, Yamato & Musashi outclassed the Iowas in every respect except speed.  Had there ever been a surface engagement between these classes, I'm afraid the Yamato in particular would have prevailed. Bigger guns with more range, thicker armor.  I refer you to Bismarck vs. Hood. The sinkings of both Yamato & Musashi were accomplished by literally hundreds of US aircraft, unopposed by enemy aircraft and thus allowed to pound away at leisure until both were finally sunk.  Had our Iowas undergone similar assaults without our own aircover, have to believe the result would have been the same.  Bottom line, in my opinion, Yamato did represent the ultimate incarnation of battleship, never to be challenged again.  That makes it worth modelling.

[Doug P.]

1 minute ago, Doug P. said:

 

We Americans do love our Iowa-class battleships, all of which survived WWII relatively unscathed.  Beautiful, powerful, and fast.  However, Yamato & Musashi outclassed the Iowas in every respect except speed.  Had there ever been a surface engagement between these classes, I'm afraid the Yamato in particular would have prevailed. Bigger guns with more range, thicker armor.  I refer you to Bismarck vs. Hood. The sinkings of both Yamato & Musashi were accomplished by literally hundreds of US aircraft, unopposed by enemy aircraft and thus allowed to pound away at leisure until both were finally sunk.  Had our Iowas undergone similar assaults without our own aircover, have to believe the result would have been the same.  Bottom line, in my opinion, Yamato did represent the ultimate incarnation of battleship, never to be challenged again.  That makes it worth modelling.

"..hard to believe the result WOULDN'T have been the same."

[mtaylor]

One of the big differences between the US and Japanese and German battlewagons was the fire control system.   If we ignore the air power involved and look at the inter-ship combat, the fire control radar made a huge difference.  

[lmagna]

4 hours ago, gak1965 said:

"Warships after Washington", and "Warships After London"

While I normally dislike relying on a single author for research and opinion, sometimes there is little or no other opportunity to do otherwise. This may be one of those cases. While everyone touches on the Washington and later London Naval treaties this is the first that I have seen of that focuses on them. I will be adding them to my reading schedule for certain. I hope they are as good as you say.

 

Thanks

[gak1965]

2 hours ago, lmagna said:

While I normally dislike relying on a single author for research and opinion, sometimes there is little or no other opportunity to do otherwise. This may be one of those cases. While everyone touches on the Washington and later London Naval treaties this is the first that I have seen of that focuses on them. I will be adding them to my reading schedule for certain. I hope they are as good as you say.

 

Thanks

They are very technical but I think they are pretty good. For most of the classes, he has diagrams (mostly side views) and lots of photos.

[mikegr]

Yamato, Bismarck, Mogami.

All these seems to be in the black list for Antony Preston. Not that we, modelers, care much though

 

https://www.worldcat.org/title/worlds-worst-warships/oclc/52131104

[lmagna]

Sometimes it is hard to detract or praise a design without raising the ire of the people who stand on the other side of the issue. But judging a design based on a single design fault or the ship's mystique, or factors that could not have been anticipated twenty or more years earlier or not using the same criteria across the board is also faulty reasoning and a disservice to the reader, especially the novice. Based on the reviews of this book it looks that possibly Anthony Preston may not have done his homework as meticulously as he could and should have. I could be wrong but in this case I will be skipping it so I will probably never know.

[Theodosius]

On 7/1/2022 at 9:43 PM, mtaylor said:

One of the big differences between the US and Japanese and German battlewagons was the fire control system.   If we ignore the air power involved and look at the inter-ship combat, the fire control radar made a huge difference.  

 

If you are interested in this, here is a link where they were discussing the radar in more detail:

 

Tirpitz' Radar - Page 3 - Naval History Forums (kbismarck.org)

 

[mikegr]

2 hours ago, lmagna said:

Sometimes it is hard to detract or praise a design without raising the ire of the people who stand on the other side of the issue. But judging a design based on a single design fault or the ship's mystique, or factors that could not have been anticipated twenty or more years earlier or not using the same criteria across the board is also faulty reasoning and a disservice to the reader, especially the novice. Based on the reviews of this book it looks that possibly Anthony Preston may not have done his homework as meticulously as he could and should have. I could be wrong but in this case I will be skipping it so I will probably never know.

It depends on the criteria used. If we take under consideration the purpose of built, then Bismarck was a disaster as her task to destroy enemy merchant vessels was never accomplished. Had the Germans used its steel to produce several dozens U boat instead, the war in the Atlantic may would have a different outcome.

Same for Vanguard , that was built to fight in a war that finished too early for her.

But if you consider the technology involved things may appear different.

Bismarck was the Yamato of its time being the most armored ship ever created with 42% of its weight dedicated to armor.

Vanguard built finally in 1946 was a state of the art ship with the most extended battle damage control.

[lmagna]

While it is true that a number of ships from this time period were built for circumstances  different than what they found themselves in or were even possible misused to some extent, that does not make them a disaster. Like some say "Hindsight is always 20/20." The Germans original intent was to build ships that would rival any ships they might encounter and form a homogenous state of the art fleet much as they had in WWI. The end end of the Washington and London treaties as well as the un-enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles produced a reduced naval arms race somewhat similar to the turn of the century with the introduction of the Dreadnaught. The ship building plans of Germany and Japan both clearly reflected this even though it could be argued that Japan was further along with building a world fleet and using it than  Germany by the beginning of the war. One does not just stick a ship like the Bismarck or Yamato back into the box just because the use they were designed for or the fleet they were intended to work in conjunction with does not materialize.  The Japanese always had a plan where the Carriers would draw out and and damage the AZmerican fleet and the surface fleet would close in and finish them off. 

 

If there were ships that matched the description applied to the Bismarck above then it would have to be the French and Italian ships of the mid and late 30s that would have never been able to operate in a fleet environment that would have made them effective against even one of the allied fleets.  Again, the Japanese came closer to recognizing the need with the conversion of the third Yamato class ship, the Shinano  into a carrier.

 

While speed, tonnage, firepower, armor and technology all play a role in the effectiveness of a ship, a much bigger factor is the use and spirit involved in how the ship is used and is far more of a factor in winning than who brings the big guy to the fight. After it's original victory. (That could have been much greater if Captain Lindemann had his way and had been allowed to pursue the POW and return to Germany as all attempts at breaking into the Atlantic were in his opinion at that point were fruitless. It could be said that the entire raid was doomed from the beginning as it was originally intended to be comprised of  battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, and the heavy cruisers Admiral Hipper and Admiral Scheer along with the Prinz Eugene. The operation was intended to complement the U-boat attacks on British supply lines occurring at the same time. This would have comprised a force that with the exception of carriers would have been impossible or very difficult for the British to counter. Instead the sinking of the Hood set off a frenzy that diverted virtually every British ship in the Atlantic to find and sink the Bismarck that was virtually alone and damaged. I do not believe this would have changed even if she had reached Brest. 
 

Ships like the USS Houston and HMAS Perth, HMS Gloworm, Taffy 3, the ships in the first and second Naval Battles of Guadalcanal, or the River Plate and many more prevailed or altered the expected results where on paper it should have been otherwise.  But it was how the vessels were fought that determined the eventual outcome not their statics or even intended function.

Edited July 4, 2022 by lmagna

[Doug P.]

On 6/29/2022 at 4:38 PM, thibaultron said:

Accourding to an article in Naval Proceeding in the 80s. The Japanese ships used WWI era technology for armor and shells, giving for thickness of armor per inch less protection than the American WWII era battleship armor. The shells also had less penetrating power. So the larger guns on the Yamato, and thicker armor only had better performance at long range where the larger heavier shell would have better performance in plunging shots. The US ships had better radar controlled firing systems, and better speed, allowing them to better set the field of battle. At closer ranges the US ships armor and shells held the advantage. But we will never know for sure.

The problem would be, can you close the range with the Yamato before her guns with superior range hit you?  Unless our ships were able to surprise the Yamato, there might have been a problem with those plunging 46cm AP Yamato shells.....

[chris watton]

I am in very deep trouble when my wife gets home, it is way too big to hide anywhere!