Battleship Yamato's Main Guns 

Arigatou gozaimasu

™

You seem to know a lot about Yamato. I have a few questions Are there any known cross sections of Yamato's interior? How many main battery hits did Yamato make during the battle of Samar Island? Did Yamato see any action during the battle of the Philippine Sea? Did Yamato have an immune zone to her own guns?

Amo storage looks very Dangerous

I have a feeling it's a modern imagining of what it may have been. The Japanese destroyed Yamato's plans before the surrender. Other Japanese battleships used the Kongo's British-designed loading system. BTW, USN 16" turrets only needed 300 hp to train.

@@blackpowder4016 Japan was torch happy when it came to their sekrit dokuments postwar, but it is confirmed the loading system for the 460s was a native design that was considerably heavier than similar sized guns of other nations such as Britain's 457s. This level of automation would certainly account for several hundred tons of steel imo

The crazy thing about this (and, to be fair, every other) 1930s/1940s battleship is that they were all pointless and obsolete on launch. The Allies and Axis both wasted vast sums building these superfluous weapons in an era where it was impossible to use them cost-effectively.

@@bkjeong4302 lol pointless? They remain the most durable and heavily armed ships in history and when used intelligently, swept all surface targets before them. Carriers replaced them because they were cheaper and had longer reach allowing them to kite. There is a push right now to introduce ships like Battleships (but more economical) for missions where stealth defeats the point, such as freedom of navigation patrols

Ronald Thompson You literally mentioned why they were pointless. There is no point in having a ship good at surface engagements if you don’t have to fight surface engagements. Carriers rendered surface engagements nonviable by their much greater range. That rendered other primary combat units, especially battleships, obsolete.

Hayden Young it was believed by engineers that 2 shells can sink iowa.

Indeed, but like so many Engineering marvels, my bet is it was a nightmare to use and maintain

2 yamatos 4 iowas the iowas were faster and built later than the yamato with better protection and a higher rate of main battery fire the yamatos would have bee swamped by 16" gunfire from farther than the yamatos could have seen them and highly accurate radar directed gunfire at that

And there we go again with the IOWA vs Yamato comments again, whereas he just said "For guns of that calibre it truly was an engineering marvel.". Gosh! Chill guys! Both had their own mights.

yamato's armor was built do withstand its own caliber of guns lmao

NO ,60-70YE COMPUTER

My good friends Father was an engineer, he'd be in his 90s if he was still alive, every time I saw him, he had a small slide rule in his shirt pocket, years after he retired, he still carried that slide rule, pad and pencil, he was a neat guy.

@@tachibanahasegawa3480 What exactly is a 60-70YE COMPUTER?

Me too

Same

Noticed that also. Especially the powder bags.

That’s American job creation😬

Until you add up how many people would need to maintain it.

I assume it's because they didn't have the manpower the Americans did.

It seems less secure though

Never imagined it was that intricate.

everyone had to find their own solutions to the problems of exactly how you load and operate such weapons

I read somewhere that the Yamatos loading system was creatively well designed

神機将ニ動カントス。皇国ノ隆替繋リテ此ノ一挙ニ存ス。各員奮戦激闘会敵ヲ必滅シ以テ海上特攻隊ノ本領ヲ発揮セヨ

最高の艦砲や

今の技術では主砲は作れないって聞いたことあったけど、まさかこんなにも複雑だったなんて驚き。そして納得

今より高いということは無いですが、当時の最高峰であったことは確かだと思います。 現代ならばターカイトのように耐摩耗・耐荷重・面粗度の３拍子揃って優秀な素材もあるので、火花を嫌って摺動できなかった部分も遥かに軽量に作れますし、軸受けも小抵抗・高精度・軽量と遥かに進化しています。 ですが実際に設計しようとすると、解決方法は現代とは違えど、クリアしなければならない難題が山ほど出てくるでしょうし、それらをクリアした当時の設計理念が数多く再発見されると思います。そういう意味で、昔の技術を検証するのとても意義深いと思います。 継承しなければならない最も大事なものは設計理念であり、それはいつの時代でも変わりません。

@@channel-ko5cr 　今の技術であればこれより高性能なの作れるけど作るのに金がかかりすぎて作れないだけ

worlds largest, yes, The most sophisticated turret no, that would go to vanguard

This was not new technology.

Sinking in 10 Minutes, all fore nothing, Japanes are crazy

Those turrets fell off when the ship capsized.

@@sigridqwq5198 arguably, a battleships main use is when its not in combat. It might have sunk in 10 minutes but it made the entire world take japan serious.

@@aa2339 well yeah, turrets often fall off battleships when they capsize, as they're usually held in primarily by gravity due to their enormous weight

​@@aa2339if a battleship capsizes, continued usability of it's main armament isn't exactly the priority to address...

Only an industrious and technologically advanced country could have produced such a machine, and have caused The West so much trouble. I think the driving force in the Japanese people is inherent, and self evident.

I'm sorry I know this comment is super old, but I'd like to mention that around the time Yamato was laid down and under construction relations between the UK and Japan had worsened considerably and Japan was already trying to become self sufficient in ship design anyways. It's entirely possible that it the screw was a Japanese design, but I'm not for sure.

I noticed that myself, but I attribute it to limitations of the CAD program. I am quite sure they were aware of the proper design of the breech locking mechanism, but simply didn't detail it as being very difficult to show.

R.U.S.E. 35, Spurr in his excellent "A Glorious Way to Die" noted that Japanese naval architects were still using British design elements even as Yamato class was designed. Indeed, the major watertight bulkhead arrangement was inspired by an earlier (discarded) British pattern... one which apparently contributed heavily to the Yamatos' fatal listing problem.

Very interesting your info regarding the over ramming the cordite bags on the Iowa that unfortunately cost the life of 47 sailors! I'm a bit surprised about this problem as I thought the operator had a preset lever for ramming in the 1st set of bags and then moving on the lever for the 2nd set of bags in order to not over ram those bags, instead I understand that the ramming of those bags is based entirely on the experience of the operator by moving forward the lever as needed, you can see it on the training documentary! Thanks for the info!

Paolo Viti In the case of Iowa the propellant was found to be unstable due to it being from the 1950's and being improperly stored. Also they where bloody experimenting using a propellant that has a higher burn rate than normal. Not %100 sure about Missouri, I was reading up on the Iowas just before writing this comment. I saw on one of the webpages a testimony from a sailor. He was just able to close the breach door before the smoldering powder went off.

james pobog I dont know mate, i was trying to find out more about the Iowa explosion and came across some account about just being able to close the breach in time before the smoldering power went off on one the Iowas during Vietnam Not sure if its true or not.

It was the New Jersey off Vietnam, Missouri was still mothballed, the powder used was WW2 manufacture and starting to deteriorate . that's what nearly got the New Jersey and did get Iowa

Battleship's Gunpowder Tests Confirmed September 19, 1989|JOHN M. BRODER | Times Staff Writer ( L.A. Times) WASHINGTON - The Navy on Monday acknowledged that the crew of the battleship Iowa was conducting "unauthorized experiments" with gunpowder charges in its 16-inch guns at the time of the April blast that killed 47 sailors. The naval board investigating the explosion recommended that the officers and sailors involved in the tests be punished and that a complete inquiry into the improper experiments be conducted by the Navy's inspector general. But the Navy insisted Monday that the gunnery experiments had nothing to do with the explosion in Turret 2--an explosion that the Navy continues to maintain was probably caused by a suicidal sailor, Petty Officer Clayton M. Hartwig of Cleveland. In response to complaints from members of Hartwig's family, Ohio lawmakers have called for a congressional investigation of the blast and the Navy's accusation that Hartwig caused it. Democratic Sens. John Glenn and Howard M. Metzenbaum and Democratic Rep. Mary Rose Oakar have asked the House and Senate Armed Services committees to conduct an independent inquiry. The Navy's four-month, $4-million investigation concluded that the catastrophic April 19 explosion was caused by a deliberate act of sabotage, "most likely" by Hartwig, who was the sailor closest to the breech of the 16-inch gun. Based on testimony from hundreds of witnesses and on extensive laboratory tests, the Navy theorized that Hartwig inserted a homemade detonator between the first and second 110-pound bags of gunpowder in the gun, then ordered the rammer to compress the powder until the bags exploded. The investigation found that the gun was loaded with five rather than the authorized six bags of black powder in a test designed to improve the range and accuracy of the 16-inch guns. Officers also found that the gun was loaded with a high-explosive mixture known as D-846, which is only supposed to be used in smaller quantities than were used and only with lighter projectiles than the 2,700-pound shell loaded into the gun at the time of the blast. Iowa Capt. Fred P. Moosally said he had not authorized and was not aware of the experiment with the powder and the shell in Turret 2. He said he thought the "reduced charge" that the crew was planning to fire meant six 55-pound bags of powder rather than the five 110-pound bags that exploded in the gun barrel. The tests were supervised by Master Chief Petty Officer Steven P. Skelly, an Iowa crew member since 1987. Skelly--who was not in Turret 2 when the blast occurred--is considered to be one of the Navy's top gunners, continually pushing the guns to their limit and trying new combinations of powder and projectile, Navy investigators said. The gunnery experiments aboard the Iowa were informally directed by the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) and the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Dahlgren, Va. Along with the FBI, those organizations conducted the laboratory tests that determined that the April blast could only have been caused by a deliberate act of sabotage and not by an accidental misfire. A Navy spokesman said Monday that NAVSEA's role in the Iowa investigation was not a conflict of interest because no other organization had the expertise to study an accident involving 16-inch naval guns. Rear Adm. Richard D. Milligan, head of the team that investigated the Iowa disaster, found that Skelly had engaged in "unauthorized research and development" with the battleship's main guns. He recommended that Skelly be disciplined for exceeding his orders and that Moosally be brought before an investigative panel to answer for his lack of crew supervision. SOURCE:articles.latimes.com/1989-09-19/news/mn-204_1_laboratory-tests

Phillip Mulligan This is a similar feature to the British 15 inch Mk I. You can see the cage in action in the HMS Vanguard loading movie which stood in for Hood in the movie Sink the Bismarck.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit. The Japanese had some of their ships built or engineered by the British and reverse engineered a lot of the technology during the 1930s. The Kongo battleship is one such example of a British built battleship for export to Japan just before the Washington and London Treaties and before the great depression.. I love playing this ship in World of Warships.

***** Those so called ears are called optical range finders. They work very much like your split prism view finder in a Single Reflex Camera. The naval architects do provide clearance for those large range finders from nearby objects on the ship. There are also other optical range finders mounted around the super structure of the ship to relay information to the CIC and Gunnery Officers.

+Phillip Mulligan What I also find interesting is that the rangefinders (both the turret and superstructure finders) on Yamato were made by Nippon Kogaku, the company that is now Nikon. These viewfinders were of excellent quality (equal or maybe even better than the Zeiss finders on German ships) and Nikon used this technological knowledge when they started making their first rangefinder cameras, the S models.

Alexander Nikolis Nice to know this. This may explain why my Nikon D300 and Nocker lenses are so good.

Could it be that there is a planetary gear reduction that would require it to go the other way, just wondering.

that really grinds my gears

@@lokdabest was that Peter or Homer ?, I can't remember..

@@Stu-SB Peter

What was it's cycle time? I'm sure there are some sitting in armchairs who are saying "I can do it faster."

Chuck Van, I completely agree with you. These two battleships were the largest battleships ever constructed. A lesson should have been learned from when these two amazing battleships were designed. Never underestimate someone in whom you think is inferior because sometimes they might design something far bigger than you could ever possibly imagine.

Battleships get bashed alot as obsolete dinosaurs but thats rather unfair imo. They were designed to go toe to toe with any other ship, and remain the best armor and firepower for tonnage in history. The catch was they took longer (and more money) to build than carriers, and could not reach as far or be modified as quickly as a plane. Cheap versatility over raw might, which from time to time is still necessary. Freedom of Navigation patrols for example dont work so well unless you are seen, something most modern vessels are built to avoid like their lives depend on it.

@lightsouthaha "Asians cant fight" versus a nation that had never lost a foreign war and so couldnt possibly fail. Hubris on both sides

@@ronaldthompson4989 what the japanese's war ideology is that if they can conquer another nation, that nation is inferior. its just basic level logic. since most asian nations at the time are already being colonized due to various reasons (some had all out war, some got info leaked by stupid or greedy people, some just failed to response in time or with enough strength) they pretty much have a valid reason to underestimate asian countries. them underestimating the US is probably their biggest mistake

@@jazmihamizan4987 XD

I wish you could do the reload cycle for the 100mm 65cal Guns. The most effective long range AA for IJN. That auto reloaded shells - via recoiling of the gun when it was firing - explaining the rapid 20-25rpm.

30 seconds reload on a gun that caliber is beyond impressive, idk why the players dont know that. if you aimed right you could obliterate a cruiser or seriously wound another battleship

This video is clearly a modern remake, judging by the computer generated animation. And we don't have any sources/references either, so no idea on the accuracy of this video.

That’s the rangefinder. I think you had to focus the enemy ship with the two periscopes, and because of the convergence you can determine how far the enemy ship is as a result

@@fangabxyfangabxy8563 Ahhh. the word you used "Range finder" really makes even better sense .. Thank you..

Which is why we keep pulling them out of mothballs... ;-)

dbeierl When have we done that? The last time a battleship ever fired it's guns in anger was during the Persian Gulf War in 1990.

BB's serves no purpose anymore. Missile cruisers and carriers have much more precise and powerful firepower than any BB ever had.

i think most ship now day only have armored enough to stand machine gun only ?

inoue jerry and torpedoes to some degree. Most Naval ships, at least in the United States Navy, have double hulls to provide a little bit more added protection.

JS0218Eles 一度でいいからこの目で大和を拝みたかった

自分も見たかったです

Please write in english 英語で書いてください

@@erebus8579 日本語の訛りは文章校正を見直して翻訳しました。⇒The Japanese accent was translated after reviewing the grammar. 今でも複雑で奇妙な構造をしています。 ⇒Even now, it has a complicated and strange structure. また、大和と武蔵の2隻が完成しました。⇒Moreover, this completed and installed two ships, Yamato and Musashi. もしそれが早く現れて、「大きな船の巨大銃声」の高さにあれば、それは最強だっただろう。 ⇒It would have been the strongest if it appeared early and was at the height of "big ship giant gunism". しかし、完成すると「モバイル航空主義」に転向し、時代に追いつけず、 ⇒However, when it was completed, it was converted to "mobile aviationism" and could not keep up with the times, 大和と武蔵は航空魚雷で沈没し、空母に改造された信濃は潜水艦で沈没した。 ⇒Yamato and Musashi were sunk by an aviation torpedo, and Shinano, which was converted into an aircraft carrier, was sunk by a submarine.

JS0218Eles こんにちは、問題ありません。電子翻訳機で簡単に日本語を翻訳できると思います。 英語に翻訳するのに苦労したくありません。 事実上「やまと」クラスの「しなの」第3戦艦は、戦闘の経験により爆弾によるかどうかにかかわらず、空襲に対して脆弱であることが判明したため、空母に改造されました。 または魚雷！ 「しなの」は、今もかつて潜水艦に沈没した最大の軍艦です。 船に水密隔壁を取り付けずに海上試験に出かけたので、彼女は非常に早く沈んだでしょう。 私はフランス人で、戦艦が大好きです。フランスの戦艦「リシュリュー」を非常に誇りに思っています 隣人にイタリア人！Hello, no problem I think I can translate Japanese easily with an electronic translator. I don't want it to create any difficulty for you by translating it into English. Effectively the “Shinano” Third battleship of the “Yamato” class Has been converted into an aircraft carrier since with the experience of the conflict it turned out that the battleships were vulnerable to air attacks whether by means of bombs. or torpedo! The "Shinano" Was and still is to this day the largest warship ever sunk by a submarine! She would have sunk very quickly because she left for her sea trials without a watertight bulkhead mounted on board. I am French, I love battleships And I am very proud of the French battleship "Richelieu" The Americans had the intelligence to keep their most recent battleship and turn them into a museum, we unfortunately cut them up in scrap to sell them to our neighbors the Italians!

Branon Fontaine actually, shouldn’t have been too bad. At least in the Iowa’s the hot gas was blown out the barrel

USN provided ventilation.

This grinds my gears

It's because the turrets are not actually attached to the ship, but instead are simply put onto bearings and kept there using gravity, since it really doesn't matter if they fall out when the ship capsizes, unlike the superstructure, which is welded to the ship

@@Nothing-xt8gy Not entirely true. It depends on the ship. All of the Iowas have their turrets held in place by flanges. This is to prevent the turrets from getting knocked out of place and jammed from a nearby explosion. It really depends on the design philosophy of the country. America felt that it was a risk not to have them secured, while Germany and Japan didn’t see it as that big of a risk.

It took 12 bomb and seven torpedo hits within two hours of battle to sink Yamato.

Makes sense, considering Japan's early battleships were British-built and the IJN tried to model itself on the RN quite a bit.

looking back on this video, despite this video going live i have still not found any documentation of the firing system of the main guns, which makes me think that this video is just as much an educated guess as the model i was working on. the design is largely based on the Nagato class battleship (largely british design but was the first battleship solely built by japan) which was the testbed for a lot of the yamato's design, the designation A-150 battleship was more of a paper ship than an actual test design since japan at the time could not afford to waste valuable steel on an actual A-150.

I think it is based on how the CO of the guns/weapons what them to fire. I think they can fire one barrel at a time, or them all 3 at the same time

I know the guns can be fired together or independently, but I've read the USN stopped firing all three at once because the shock waves produced by the shells interfered with each other's flight path.

dieselyeti Well that can be true. The barrel will go back as a recoil, as it cant really go up or down, but inwards, then it does make sense. I think the crew around the gun can feel the shockwaves from the gun shooting. I do think the whole ship can feel it. But yeah

The can fire independently or together. But it is common for triple turrets of pretty much any ship to have a delay on center gun which help prevent the blast from neighboring guns from interfering with the shells.

Neurofied Yamato That explains why my shells fly so strangely in World of Warships

Actually plans keep showing up, piece meal, here and there. Enough new material has been unearthed for Skulski to be issuing an updated edition of his masterpiece "Anatomy of a Ship - Yamato (and Musashi)" www.amazon.com/Battleships-Yamato-Musashi-Anatomy-Ship/dp/1844863174/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

They don't. They just fire what they got. Because even if it is AP or HE a shell hitting you will still cause major damage.

yup there was just this one monster shell. Don't forget that those babys weight over a Ton xD

Its called firing whatever you got in the barrel. Like the T series of tanks. A 125MM HE slamming against your tank might not kill you but it will severely get the message across

No point - your target will have moved, and you are leading it anyway. Calculate the expected location when the shells arrive and aim for that.

How would I go about doing that? I can't seem to send a private message, but if you'll give me your email we can talk about it - are you a native Japanese speaker by any chance?