Aerial image of battleship Yamato discovered

NHK Online ^ | 03 Jul 06 | Unkn

[COEXERJ145]

Not counting the carriers or marine assault ships, the largest would be the Ticonderoga class of guided missile cruisers (CG).

Of course in terms of fire power, nothing surpasses the Ohio class SSBN's.

[Robert A Cook PE]

It's difficult to predict the results of a battleship-battleship duel: There are surprisely few actual big-gun battles to compare results, despite the millions an millions spent on battleship and battlecruiser construction since the end of the 1898 Spanish-American War and the Japanses-Russian War.

Some fights are very conclusive:

Battlecruiser-battleships. Battlecruiser results are pretty conclusive: they sink. Quickly. Blow up good! (When hit by even only one or two rounds of a "real" gun. Few, if any, survivors after the magazines explode.) So battlecruisers are good for "fleet pride" and "showing the flag" as long as they NEVER go against real battleships.

Battleship-Aircraft, or Battlecruiser-Aircraft. (in-port)No contest. Aircraft win. Every time. Pearl Harbor. Tirpitz. Italian Navy. Japanese Navy. German Navy. Etc., etc. Only ones who survived were the Brit fleet anchored in Scotland - which makes you wonder why the Germans didn't try to bomb them.

Battleship-Aircraft, or Battlecruiser-Aircraft. (At-sea) Edge goes to aircraft. By far. Few battleships survived, those that did usually evaded (clouds or nightfall in pre-radar days are pretty effective) rather than actually defeated the aircraft. Aircraft carrier-aircraft were less successful, probably because the carriers were faster, easier to turn away from the level bombers and torpedo planes. Battleships were slower, less maneuverable. And, of course, as the war in the pacific progresses, the enemy attacked more aircraft carriers rather than battleships BECAUSE the aircraft were more dangerous. Also, there were more aircraft carriers.

battleship-Ground Fort:

For all the millions spent there, the only hit I know of was Battleship Texas getting a hole from the German big guns off Normandy during D-Day. So, is it worth it building forts, if they aren't used? Or is it worth the money building expensive anti-ship fortresses and defenses SINCE that means they won't be used? (Because that means the enemy (the naval targets) have stayed away from your ports and cities....)

So, battleship-battleship? Didn't happen often, other than Leyte Gulf where US firepower slaughtered the Japanese by crossing the tee. (Aided by side-shooting torpedoes from smaller ambusher from the side.)

Single-ship actions?

WWI had few battleship actions - most of the time they stayed locked up, almost as if the opposing admirals were afraid of using them. Not too many battleship hits even in the big fleet action off Jutland. Battlecruiser squadron actions actions were more common. And, as usual, the battlecruisers sunk.

WWII: Well over a 1000 shell hits took out the Bismark, but she was still afloat when the Brit fleet left the area. And, of course, many of those hits were smaller calibre hits from the surrounding Brit ships coming up after the aircraft knocked out Bismark's steering. But 2 Brit battleships (one very new, one very old) were needed before the smaller ships could come up close. Earlier, Bismark destroyed the Hood (BC) and had some damage (oil slick) from another battleship: Again, same thumb rule: To sink any bigger battleship at sea: attack it with two or more smaller ships. Plate River (south America): 3 British cruisers took out a larger German ship.

Guadalcanal: Hiei got knocked out by US cruisers at night, but stayed afloat and only later was sunk by aircraft the next day.

A few nights later, Kirishima, a survivor of the battle with Hiei, was sunk by USS Washington in a night gun action.

No Med battleship-battleship other than the Brit's taking out the French fleet when it was anchored in Africa happened that I know of. Italian fleet pretty much stayed in port after getting hit by British air. (That's where Yamamoto learned how to attack battleships with torpedoes in shallow water.)

As always, check my assumptions!

[Defender2]

The equalizers definitely would have been the U.S.S. Montana Class BB's had they been built with 12 of the same 16" guns that the Iowa Class carried. They were cancelled late in the war.

[Last Dakotan]

Thanks for the pics

[Oztrich Boy]

The top one is the Yamato redesigned for 2199. That's what I first thought of when I read "Aerial image of battleship Yamato discovered" too

[Artemis Webb]

When I was a kid I was into water line models. I believe I had the Yamato. Damn I loved those things. My favorite was Prince of Wales ( I wasn't particular about years of operation or what hemisphere they served in...they just had to be "cool").

If I remember right the U.S. was building a battleship larger than the Iowa class to be called the Montana class, about 1/3 larger than the Iowa's...but construction was canceled due to the Montana's not fitting wartime needs.

[RetiredSWO]

The closest thing we have in destructive force to a Battleship is the Aircraft Carrier. However, if you are looking in the CRUDES class the Ticongeroga cruisers are next.

Here they are in comparison

	IJN Yamato	USS Ronald Reagan	USS Anzio
Length (in feet)	862.5	1092	567
Beam (in feet)	121 ft	134 ft	55
Displacement(tons)	72,800	(3) 20mm CIWS	9,600
Speed (in knots)	27	30+	30
Main Battery	(9) 18.1" Guns	Strike Aircraft	(2) 61-cell VLS Missile Launchers
Secondary Battery	(6) 6.1"	0	(2) 4-cell Harpoon Anti-ship Missile Launchers
AA Guns	(190) 1"-2" Guns	(3) 20mm CIWS	(2) 20mm CIWS
Missiles	0	(2) Sea Sparrow 8-cell Launchers (2) RAM 21-cell launchers	(2) 61-cell VLS launchers
Aircraft	7	80+	2 Helicopters
Catapults	2	4	0

[spanalot]

Much better maneuvarability with the Iowas - and better armour

[Robert A Cook PE]

Speed advantage (and FUEL) (in open waters) was strongly with Iowa's: Since they were 6 knots faster, and with cleaner hulls (less seaweed from hull cleanings in our forward-deployed floating drydocks) she could get within 16" range fairly quickly.

The Yamato could get in few rounds at extreme range, but then after only a few shots the Iowa could begin shooting back - more accurately (radar fire control) and can control the remaining battle: closing if needed, staying within long 16" range, or opening out of 18" range depending on what happens.

AS always, its the first "effective" hit that matters. One shell (from either side) might take out an engine room, or a gun turret, or the bridge. Then, with that one blast the battle flips.

[longtermmemmory]

why would survival have been an embarrasment?

[GAB-1955]

"What is the closest thing the Navy has to a battleship now? A destroyer?"

An Ohio-class SSBN.

I used to annoy my good friend, a battleship buff, during the Gulf War when I called the 16-inch guns on the Wisconsin "its secondary armament." (The first armament would be the Tomahawks.)

[cayuga]

The Yamato's Maiden Voyage had a short Honeymoon straight to Davy Jones' Locker! Nice shootin boys!

It wasn't the maiden voyage. Yamato served as flagship for the Main Body forces at Midway, June 1942.

[nuke rocketeer]

Read the link I posted earlier. The throw weight of the Japanese 18" gun was virtually the same as the American 16". The maximum range was somewhat longer, but the accuracy would have made long range hits problematical and Japanese shells were known for a high dud percentage. In the final analysis, the Iowa ships would have used their superior speed to close to effective range and sunk the Yamato.

[Doohickey]

Thanks for the ping. The Japanese knew that history had passed the battleship by.

Yamato had a sister ship, Shinano, which was converted to an aircraft carrier. Actually, Shinano was the third hull of the class; Musashi was sunk by aircraft as well.

Shinano was sunk on 29 November 1944, by USS Archerfish (SS-311).

Archerfish displaced 1800 tons to Shinano's 68,000 tons.

[mad_as_he$$]

"Final Countdown"

[Gator101]

but construction was canceled due to the Montana's not fitting wartime needs.

Yep...after seeing big expensive battleships sunk by those pesky winged things at Taranto, Pearl Harbor, and off of Singapore I guess the world's admirals figured there wasn't much use in heavily investing in more targets.

The battleships still proved pretty useful in the AA and shore bombardment role however. Imagine the volume of AA fire one of them could put up. It was handy having them nearby when the kamikazes came hunting for carriers.

[El Gato]

What is the closest thing the Navy has to a battleship now? A destroyer?

We really have nothing comparable. Big naval guns have gone the way of the Dodo bird. Wrongly I think, but gone they are, except the mothballed Iowa class ships (some of which are also museums) and a few other floating museums of WW-II or earlier vintage.

The big capital ships are the carriers. However the conversion of some of the Ohio class SSBNs to SSGNs (cruise missile carriers) creates a different sort of capitial ship, good for shore bombardment or anti=ship strikes.

[APRPEH]

the strength of the battleship hull and the ability to re-fit to modern standards including missile batteries made the BB a Reagan era symbol. remember as "obsolete" as they were deemed, the New Jersey was pulled out of retirement 3 times. the last time during the Reagan administration and she put on quite a light and sound show off the shore of Lebanon.

[APRPEH]

BTW..correction
this photo is not Lebanon but Vietnam

[Political Junkie Too]

Here's a link to one more: USS Arizona

-PJ