Yamato, the super-battleship

[temujin77]

"When you walk inside, there are arrows telling you which direction is the front and which is the back—otherwise you can't tell. For a couple of days I didn't even know how to get back to my own quarters." That was Naoyoshi Ishida's recollection of the battleship, or as some called super-battleship, Yamato. Her 18-inch guns were wide, but just by the statistic of the gun barrels one cannot imagine the terror the recipients of the 3,000-pound shells must feel. Luckily for the Americans, there were not too many who stood on the receiving end of the monstrous shells, for that the proud ship did not enter combat until it was too late for her to make a difference, let alone being built as history's largest battleship to date in the age of aircraft. After she sank off Okinawa, the ship remained an object of extreme fascination, spawning off numerous films, novels, even an anime that set stage in the future.

To learn more about the battleship Yamato, see the links below. Shamelessly, link to my own site is listed first

WW2DB: Yamato
NOVA | Sinking the Supership | PBS
Yamato class
Japanese Navy Ships--Yamato (Battleship, 1941-1945)

Has anyone seen the recent Japanese movie on the Yamato? Is it any good?

[Klaus]

According to the informative links you gave us this must have been a hell of a ship. That ship could spawn a series of "What if..." questions.

I love the Aircraft catapult.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Klaus

I love the Aircraft catapult.

Klaus,

They are still in use in large carriers today. See Aircraft catapult.

[temujin77]

Originally Posted by Klaus

According to the informative links you gave us this must have been a hell of a ship.

Oh yeah, it was a hell of a ship alright. Even her AA ammunition was rather interesting. She carried a rather unique shell for her primary guns. Fired toward the direction of incoming bogeys, the shell explodes after a set time and spreads fiery shrapnel across the sky. A 3,000-lb flak shell, if you will. Quite a scary thought.

Here's something of interest. In a way, Yamato was not used for battles for 90% of the Pacific War because the risk that a ship bearing the country's mythical name might be sunk was just unthinkable. A nearly identical scenario actually held for Germany, too, for a time. See this ship:

WW2DB: Deutschland

Originally named Deutschland, she was an awe-inspiring heavy cruiser. Of course as Hitler led Germany into war, the ship was renamed Lützow before engaging in the conflict in Norway. Why? Hitler would lose a lot of face if the ship named after the Vaterland was to be destroyed!

Here's a what-if: Had Yamato not been named Yamato, perhaps she would've been used in the Solomon Islands Campaign when big guns might actually had made a difference in the war?

[Klaus]

Yeah. That's a point. Just imagine the headlines: "Yamato surrenders" "Deutschland kicked the bucket"

[Jim O]

For those who are unfamiliar with the term Yamato (as I was) it has several references. Yamato is the dominant ethnic group in Japan. Much further back it refers to a period of Japanese history (Yamato Period, Yamato State) when Japan was ruled by rulers in Yamato Province (now Nara Prefecture).

Some references:

• The Yamato State
  
• Cultural Diffusion and Its Effects on Japan
  
• Yamato period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• Yamato people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jdbeatty]

Yup. Big. Impressive. And essentially a waste of resources.

The samurai missed the only chance they had of using their huge battle line to actually influence the course of the war: Midway.

Think about it: Four Japanese carriers sunk but the largest battle fleet in the Pacific on the way behind. Two surviving American carriers with battered and exhausted air groups short on ammunition and fuel escorted by a handful of treaty cruisers and prewar destroyers.

Why didn't the samurai just go after the carriers with their surface fleet? What was to stop them? The American carriers weren't that much faster, if they were faster at all. They could have been pursued all the way back to Pearl and shot to pieces there and the US had nothing to stop them.

Why didn't they? Loss of nerve? If so, so much for the legendary samurai courage against impossible odds. Loss of face because of the destruction of the carriers? Unlikely. True samurai warriors would be proud to have fought on despite grevious losses.

More likely lack of strategic vision. When the Midway plan was...wait, not derailed because the carriers were gone, no...DISCREDITED, someone had to be blamed for the failure of the plan, So the plan was stopped and the samurai went back to reevaluate it.

Postwar apologists simple said that it failed because the carriers were gone. No, not really. The carriers were only there in the event the American carriers came out. Well, they did that, and the American flattops were worn to a frazzle.

Which had nothing to do with Midway. The landings might have proceeded, perhaps with greater losses, but losses are scorned by true samurai. And the battle fleet might have pursued the pitiful remnants of the American Pacific Fleet to destruction.

Why didn't that happen? Original plan didn't work that way, that's why, and the samurai were essentially incapable of improvising.

Which brings us back to the impressive but useless battleships of the Yamato class. Useless because the samurai were afraid to use them, or needed elaborate plans to do so.

Most likely the latter, but with elements of the former. And in the event the distinction is meaningless since the fact was that the samurai didn't use the monsters for anything other than bomb magnets.

[temujin77]

Originally Posted by jdbeatty

Yup. Big. Impressive. And essentially a waste of resources.

The samurai missed the only chance they had of using their huge battle line to actually influence the course of the war: Midway.

Think about it: Four Japanese carriers sunk but the largest battle fleet in the Pacific on the way behind. Two surviving American carriers with battered and exhausted air groups short on ammunition and fuel escorted by a handful of treaty cruisers and prewar destroyers.

Why didn't the samurai just go after the carriers with their surface fleet? What was to stop them? The American carriers weren't that much faster, if they were faster at all. They could have been pursued all the way back to Pearl and shot to pieces there and the US had nothing to stop them.

Why didn't they? Loss of nerve? If so, so much for the legendary samurai courage against impossible odds. Loss of face because of the destruction of the carriers? Unlikely. True samurai warriors would be proud to have fought on despite grevious losses.

More likely lack of strategic vision. When the Midway plan was...wait, not derailed because the carriers were gone, no...DISCREDITED, someone had to be blamed for the failure of the plan, So the plan was stopped and the samurai went back to reevaluate it.

Postwar apologists simple said that it failed because the carriers were gone. No, not really. The carriers were only there in the event the American carriers came out. Well, they did that, and the American flattops were worn to a frazzle.

Which had nothing to do with Midway. The landings might have proceeded, perhaps with greater losses, but losses are scorned by true samurai. And the battle fleet might have pursued the pitiful remnants of the American Pacific Fleet to destruction.

Why didn't that happen? Original plan didn't work that way, that's why, and the samurai were essentially incapable of improvising.

Which brings us back to the impressive but useless battleships of the Yamato class. Useless because the samurai were afraid to use them, or needed elaborate plans to do so.

Most likely the latter, but with elements of the former. And in the event the distinction is meaningless since the fact was that the samurai didn't use the monsters for anything other than bomb magnets.

Lots of great points there, jdbeatty. A little bit of Monday morning quarterback, though?

[jdbeatty]

Why is it that "Monday morning quarterbacks" are always said of those who ask why the "LOSERS" didn't do the obvious.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by jdbeatty

Why is it that "Monday morning quarterbacks" are always said of those who ask why the "LOSERS" didn't do the obvious.

Because the winners won, so second guessing them is less interesting.

Any analysis of decisions after the fact is the very definition of Monday morning quarterbacking. Analyzing events and decisions, especially mistakes, is what historians do. To criticize it is to criticize the very process of learning.