Bismarck vs. Yamato

The historical record clearly shows that as few as a half dozen heavy shell hits on a battleship....any battleship.... will pretty much render it ineffective as a fighting vessel. Yes, it can still shoot in most cases but, it won't hit anything with the primary fire control distrupted. This almost always happens within the first few hits. Once it is gone the ship can't hit anything.
Oh, but there is a secondary position and rangefinders on the turrets you say? These are less capable than the primary direction system and in turn less efficent; so much so that they can be discounted as nearly worthless. That is especially true of the turret mounted insturments. Those really are worthless.
It also doesn't matter if the armor is penetrated in many cases. The damage above the armor is often more than sufficent to cause disruption of even protected systems. As some examples, the Jean Bart took one 15" hit from Hood that failed to penetrate the deck armor. Yet, fumes from the explosion and fire that followed forced an engine room to be evacuated when the ventilation sucked them in.
Hitting turrets and jamming them in train is common. The shells rarely actually penetrated the armor. Instead, they just caused it to be deformed enough to jam the race and stop the turret. Penetration or not that turret is out of commission.
Fires can shut down critical systems by forcing the ventilation off. This includes the main engines in some cases. Fires and non penetrating hits can also knock out the electrical systems on ships easily.
Even shells that don't detonate can be very destructive. The splinters they generate damage everything in their path. Underwater hits can cause, and usually do, hundreds to thousands of tons of flooding.
The bottom line here is that once one battleship starts getting hits on its opponet and does so before it is hits itself, the battle is pretty much over. The amount of armor and its distribution really don't have much impact on the outcome. Hitting first and often does.

 

Hello,

New to this forum, but I frequent a number of naval warfare forums and it's been an interest of mine for many years. There have been some knowledgeable posts here and I agree with some of them, but I'd like to express my opinion about some of the points made.

1. Pow's shell hit below Bismarck's belt armor damaged her holding bulkhead and resulted in the subsequent flooding and loss of an auxiliary machinery room and a boiler room, contrary to a previous poster's statement that it only affected her TDS.

2. Yamato's armor joint failed due to the pressure wave from the explosion of a submarine torpedo which contained 800 lb of HBX. I'm not convinced the point impact of a shell on the main belt would cause the same failure.

3. Unless I'm mistaken, the US Navy practised at ranges over 20,000 yds and doctrine was to open fire at ranges over 30,000 yds and to maintain long range in battle. New Jersey and Iowa continued to fire and achieve straddles on Katori until she was 39,000 yds away. Why would they do that if it was not potentially effective to do so? It's not surprising they didn't get any direct hits on such a tiny target. Why would ships be designed with an inner immune zone boudary of 20,000 yds when they didn't expect to be able to fight outside that range? It's easy to say that hits are more likely inside 20,000 yds. That's obvious. But if you fail to open fire outside that and get hit by a shell which penetrates your deck into the ship's vitals, you epitaph may not be very complimentary.

4. I've seen opinions expressed that any hit on a turret is going to disable it. I don't see why. Tanks get hit on the turret all the time and it doesn't disable it. I realized there is a large scaling difference, but I haven't seen enough evidence of this to convince me that it's even likely. For example, the hit which jammed Jean Bart's turret was a ricochet and not likely to happen very often.

5. Yamato's firing cycle was similar to Iowa's in that it was based on firing once every 30 seconds. I've not seen anything contrete to indicate she wasn't capable of that.

6. Renown was reportedly one of the best shooting ships in the RN and I don't believe she had the latest FC equipment by a long shot, and certainly not a stable verticle.

 

Well that is not very accurate. The Yamato was anything but an example of the "all or nothing" armor scheme, and even Bismarck used a hybrid scheme; her bow for instance was not armored for a substantial length. In WW II battleships, the designers didn't even try to prevent fuse initiation in AP shells. The Yamato's weather deck aft of her number three turret was paved with several inches of concrete, for example. So whether either ship's structure initiates AP fused shell fuses is going to be a random matter.

In reality, neither ship has an advantage because of their armor design. Bismarck was optimized for close in fighting and was nearly impossible to penetrate with low angle fire, but had very little protection from plunging fire. Yamato was designed to carry the heaviest possible armor (although it wasn't used as efficiently as possible), but had serious flaws in the way the armor was mounted, leaving her open to serious damage even from relatively minor hits.

The impact of a 1,764 lb shell arriving at around 2,000 FPS is going to exceed the shock of a torpedo detonating by a wide margin. If you think that is some sort of love tap compared to a torpedo, I suggest you need to do some more reading. At Sibuyan Sea, an aerial 500 lb. bomb weighing less than a third as much, and traveling at a much slower speed impacted Musashi's main deck and the shock knocked out her main battery director several hundred feet away. This shouldn't have happened and wouldn't have, had the armor been properly mounted.

What is your source for this statement? Yamato's TROM states that her spotter plane confirms a hit on the first salvo, not a straddle. The two events are quite different and a spotter pilot would not report one if, in fact, the other event occurred

"Both of YAMATO's forward turrets open fire at a distance of 20 miles. Of her six forward rifles only two are initially loaded with AP shells, the remainder with Type 3s. YAMATO's F1M2 "Pete" spotter plane confirms that the first salvo is a hit. The carrier starts to smoke. Three six-gun salvos are fired on the same target, then the fire is shifted to the next carrier. It is concealed immediately by a smoke screen made by the American destroyers. "

It says nothing about a "straddle", nor can I find any confirmation from US sources that White Plains was straddled on the first salvo. Even if that could be confirmed it does not prove the straddle was from Yamato's salvo.

Yamato's first salvo was at 0558. Later, at 0651 Yamato also claims hits on a "cruiser" which is "seen burning".

"A charging "cruiser" emerges from behind the smoke. YAMATO engages her from a distance of more than 10 miles and scores a hit with the first salvo. The target is seen burning before it is lost sight of."

But again, we know from US records, that no US ships, let alone a "cruiser", were hit that early in the battle. Yamato's gunnery crew were clearly inexperienced and over-excited, seeing things they wanted to see, not what actually was going on. Yamato didn't hit anything at this time and there is no evidence that she hit anything later in he battle. Did Yamato even get a straddle early in the battle? Pehaps, but it can't be proven one way or the other.

No, a good gunnery crew doesn't see things that aren't there. If they are missing they will know it 99 % of the time, if they are hitting, there is no doubt they are hitting. Yamato's gunnery crew was inexperienced, poorly trained (especially in using radar for FC), confused, and badly fatigued after being at action stations for days. It's not surprising they saw things that weren't there, and failed to hit anything.

You have it backwards. There is no evidence that Yamato ever was a good gunnery ship. She participated in just five gunnery exercises and we have evidence that on at least two of them, the results were not satisfactory. Furthermore, in actual battle, there is no evidence whatsoever that Yamato ever hit an enemy ship, other than unsubstantiated claims by her inexperienced gunnery crew; these claims are not borne out by cross checking US records. We have at least one instance where we know beyond doubt that Yamato failed to hit a major US warship at very close range during 40 minutes of intense combat during which she was hit by the other ship.

I'm perfectly willing to concede Yamato may have been a crack gunnery ship at some period during WW II, but you're going to have to document some positive shooting achievement on her part. If that evidence exists, I sure haven't run across it, but I've seen plenty to indicate she wasn't a good gunnery ship.

I see. A single, possibly claimed (but unproven) straddle is definitive evidence, but over 40 minutes of documented combat at what amounts to point blank range where one ship hits the other but remains untouched itself, is just an ancedote? Who credits Yamato with a "number of hits" off Samar? Last I checked, the people who claim Yamato hit anything there have yet to be able to prove it. At best, Yamato's "hits" at Samar all rely on speculation and a generous willingness to suspend healthy skepticism.

Then you are claiming that something changed over the years for Yamato, her gunnery crew, or her FC system? What was it? When did it happen? What sources reference the change and detail it's effect on Yamato's shooting ability?

Not all of them, but I do have references to various IJN officers who do not have anything good to say about Yamato's shooting. Do you have any documents claiming she shot well at any time during her career?

If you're talking about some of the memebers on the Naweaps board, I've been told the same thing, but when push came to shove, it all turned out to be speculation, supported by equivocal and inconclusive evidence. I predict you'll come up with the same "propabilities".

No, that's because you don't understand what a stable vertical does. It's a function that has to be performed in order to have any chance of hitting anything at sea, but there are different ways of doing it, such as using telescopes in the director to correct cross roll. The Japanese came up with a unique way of accomplishing the job, that doesn't mean they were better than the Germans, just different. But both the Germans and Japanese relied on humans to a greater extent than the Americans or British. That means the training and experience of the crew is much more important than the hardware of the FC system.

Nope! But it's very difficult to predict the performance of either type of FC under various circumstances. One or the other might have a significant advantage over the other. But the odds are that Bismarck would have the advantage in my personal opinion.

LOL! That's a "minor difference" to you?

Well, that's too bad, because the fact is naval FC systems are extremely complicated and place a premium on a well-trained and experienced crew. This is especially true of optical systems. That means, training, skill, experience, even mental alertness, all are important to placing shells on target. In most major Japanese warships, there were seven FC operators, each doing a different, but vital job. If one guy was a little tired or distracted, or not feeeling well, it might mean the difference between getting the critical shell on target, or not. That's why I say it's silly to say one ship or the other would win, it just can't be predicted, no matter which side has the biggest rangefinder..

Yes, I'm using some Navweaps sites and others. Been a memmber for almost 8 years.

 

Why not? The force is potentially even greater than from a torpedo. Musashi's failure was from a relatively small aerial bomb and had far-reaching consequences.

So what's your point? A battleship's skipper would normally open fire just as soon as his gunnery officer advised he had a firing solution. If that is at 30,000 yards, that is where they will start. There is a point of diminishing return, however. If the gunnery officer has no confidence he can hit at 30,000 yards, or rather I should say, if the gunnery officer believes hits are not likely at 30,000 yards, there is no point in wasting ammo. Generally, fire would be opened at whatever range that particular navy's gunnery doctrine calls for; the gunnery officer will do his damndest to obtain a solution to allow that to happen unless there are extenuating circumstances such as poor visibility.

It's a matter of random luck. A jammed turret does not equal disablement, but a hit on the main battery director is, to all intents and purposes, a disabling hit because the ships main battery is rendered more or less ineffective. The circumstances determine what amounts to disablement; a reduction inn speed might just be an inconvenience, or it might mean the loss of he ship as in Scharnhorst's last fight.

One round every 30 seconds would be pushing it for Yamato and probably couldn't be sustained for more than a few salvos. Navweaps claims Yamato's main battery could fire more like one round every 35 seconds. All sorts of factors would affect Yamato's rate of fire, including range, sea conditions, visibility. Bismarck's rate of fire would probably also be well under the claimed ROF of 3 rounds per mnute.

Which just goes to prove what I've been saying; that the crew training, experience, and innate skill are more important than hardware. Actually, the RN did use gyroscopic stable verticals by WW II in most of their ships somewhat like the USN. I'm not sure what Mark of FC Renowwn was fitted with, but both the USN and RN were well ahead of Japan and Germany, especially after radar became avilable mid-war.

 

Let the pontificating begin!

No belt-joint failures for Musashi are attributed to bomb effects. Designers were acquainted with the vulnerability of the joint in the face of torpedo detonations from the start--they did not need Yamato's war experience to tell them--but there was never any indication of vulnerability to shell impacts. No surprise. Belt joints had been designed to survive shell impacts for a hundred years, and in Yamato's case, the impacts would likely be rather oblique.

Yes, that's the upper limit. The exact firing cycle is posted online for all to see. At maximum elevation, it gets up to 40 seconds or so. Iowa could manage better than 30 seconds at short range, but the same real-world limits would kick in for her as well.

I woouldn't go that far. I have a friend currently micro-analyzing Samar gunnery via US and Japanese action reports, and he is starting to think Yamato may have done better than usually supposed. However, it is possible that her first salvoes were off by an exceptionally long distance.

I don't think I'd agree with the characterization of the ship, but it does seem that the crew had minimal opportunities for gunnery training after she commisioned.

What, are you being reasonable? Who told you to do that? What next?

The American fast battleships lacked RPC for their main batteries at the start of the war, and I don't think they were all fitted until late 1943. I can check if anyone needs an exact date.

It is not certain to me. The NTM considered Japanese FC somewhat inferior to American standards, the glaring difference being in radar.

Some articles are better than others.

Waah! But I just came aboard!

 

Correct. Only three or four large-caliber hits have been identified on Bismarck's belt, and all were penetrations.

The "Flower" class corvette Sackville is still afloat in one piece. She could have defeated both Bismarck and Yamato.
Is there a limit on sarcastic remarks to one post?

Sorry. Graduated from a public school.

That is not true at all. At the time she entered service, Hood was arguably the best-protected ship in the RN.

While presumably all battleships were constructed to fight and destroy other battleships (hence the term "battleship"), it is extremely difficult to figure exactly what the Germans had in mind for Bismarck. Even the germans don't appear to have known.

Yes, Yamato's turrets were very well protected. Bismarck's, in contrast, were vulnerable at all ranges to just about any enemy battleship's gunfire.

Personally, I don't find this instructive. The path taken to a design is unimportant. The design itself is what goes into battle. Bismarck was superior in armament to Bayern, superior in fire control, superior in speed and range, superior in armor, superior in auxiliary systems. So we gain little by grouping them together. The two designs did, however, have one identical feature in common--they had the exact same kitchen.

Yes, it is now well established which was which.

In the case of the PoW hit, the shell was no longer traveling nose first. It was probably twirling, and thus unlikely to penetrate any sort of thick plating.
I guess that's enough from me for now.

 

Yeah, though this is not my field I've already pulled a chair up. Do continue and just ignore me

 

Yep, a flipping good read.

 

Yamato was clearly an all or nothing design. Bismark wasn't. That's pretty well accepted among all the naval sites and books I've read.

See: All or Nothing Protection

That's why Yamato could punch holes in her belt from over 30,000 yards. ...

Well first of all it's only going to be traveling a 2,000 f/s at very close range. At any range over about 20,000 yards it's going to be under 1,700 f/s. If we use 800 KG for the weight of the German shell and 550 m/s for it's velocity and the standard .r*m*v*v for ke then convert using the converter at: Convert newton-meter to kiloton [explosive] - Conversion of Measurement Units
This comes out to the equivalant of less than 60 lbs of explosvie.
Now compare that to a torpedo warhead.

You don't get a hit without a stradle but I believe White Plains reported being stradled but I'm not sure where I read that. Will have to check some books if no one else responds to it.

OK there's no evidence either way. But I didn't see anyone arguing that Yamato was a superb gunnery ships so I didn't see any need to state it that way.

Well you posted that she was sent back for more gunnery training. The there was a period near the end where she hardly left harbor so yes there were almost assuredly changes in crew quality. She also got some equipment changes including radar I believe.

No it's because you don't understand what I'm saying. It doesn't matter whether I understand what a stable vertical is or not. If we are comparing 2 ships neither of which have one.

 

My point was that battleships in WWII were capable and in fact planned to open accurate fire at ranges greater than 20,000 yds.

Did you read all the posts? I was replying to the statement that most turret hits would disable the turret.

My statement was only related to the fact that Yamato's rate of fire was probably similar to that of other battleships.

You have restated the obvious. My point was that Renown didn't have a stable verticle when she won the fleet gunnery competition. It was a valuable tool, but you previously indicated that a ship couldn't fire very accurately without one.

A couple of us came over from kbismarck.org to try to clear up some misconceptions. I think I've had my say, unless there is some new material. It's an interesting forum, and although I don't know as much about land combat I expect to enjoy reading some of the threads here.

I vote for the M1 Garand.

 

In my view, Yamato was an extreme case of AoN armoring, second only to Nelson. In Nelson's case, there's the thinner deck over the machinery, but otherwise you really have to search for intermediate thicknesses. I believe the 6in mounts had 1.5in faces. The CT tube and the cupola atop the CT had 4-6in armor. Stuff like that. Yamato had the thickened weather deck outside the citadel; otherwise she's in the same class with Nelson.
In contrast, US battleships all had at least one thickened deck other than the armor deck. The 5in/38 mounts were about 2in. The lower barbettes had intermediate thickness. KGV had some very thick plating outside the citadel which gradually thinned toward the ends. Some people feel that Littorio was not AoN, and Bismarck definitely wasn't. But it's a spectrum rather than distinct classes.
In a related note, we should probably recognize that the "near invulnerability" of Bismarck to short-range gunnery refers only to the protection for her vitals. Her belt is no less vulnerable than anyone else's. Armor has two basic purposes: to protect important systems and to preserve buoyancy. These discussions tend to overlook the buoyancy factor (for Bismarck, at least; buoyancy is a prime topic for AoN ships).

 

Hello Richard,

I was wondering when you would turn up and add your famous naval historian biases to the argument.

Yep, Yamato could be classed as "all or nothing" armoring, but that doesn't mean Bismarck's shells are going to go through her decks without initiating the fuses as the other poster is arguing. That will happen on neither ship and is a silly argument. Intermediate armor isn't really being argued here.

And yes, buoyancy is going to be an issue for both ships; Yamato has a lot more to spare, but it's also relatively less well protected, not only by armor, but with subdivision.

 

I know what "all or nothing" armor is, thank you, and I don't believe Yamato was a good example, despite what you read. Yamato's designers could have used her armor much more efficiently had they adhered to the all of nothing concept more closely. At any rate, the advantage you claim for Yamato just isn't there; both ship's decks will initiate AP shell fuses.

That's an interesting comment. You do realize that at 30,000 yards the angle of fall of Yamato's shells will be something like 30 degrees? Unless Bismarck is rolling her guts out, Yamato's shells don't even have much chance of striking Bismarck's belt, let alone penetrating it. It's a nonsensical remark.

Well, technically you can, but that's another argument.

I've checked all the references I have on Samar and none of them directly claim White Plains was straddled by Yamato at the beginning of the battle. There is mention of straddles by the Japanese cruisers fairly early in the battle, but these are specifically 8" shell splashes. I have seen suggestions (not conclusive proof) that Yamato's first salvos were very far off the mark. If you can find a source that claims White Plains clearly reported a "straddle" by battleship caliber shells early in the battle, I'd be interested in seeing it

Actually, there is evidence that she was deficient in gunnery, and I've produced it; Check her TROM.Imperial Battleships The only evidence we have is that Yamato started out deficient and never got enough training or practice to significantly improve.

In actual fact, except for running troops and cargo around, Yamato got few opportunities for training at any time during the war. I could only count five times that she was actually on exercises during her entire career. Of course, some training may have been carried out without live fire exercises, these wouldn't necesarily be listeed in er TROM.

Yamato, according to her TROM, was fitted with Type 22 surface search/gunnery radar in March, 1944. She spent time in May and June of 1944 on training exercises, including gunnery drills, at Tawi Tawi. Then she participated in the Battle of The Philippine Sea in June (where she shot down a Japanese plane with her main battery). Yamato then moved south to Lingga Roads near Singapore in July where she spent a period of months in training. After that she participated in the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

Rear Admiral Koyanagi, who was on her bridge at Samar has an interesting comment about the state of Yamato's gunnery training while being interrogated after the war;

"Q. Admiral KURITA told us that after the battle in June the ships of the Second Fleet went to the LINGGA Area to train because of the shortage of fuel in the EMPIRE. What type of training did they emphasize between July and the time they left to attack the American Fleet?
A. The Fleet arrived at LINGGA about the 22nd of July. The main part of the training was to:

1. Attack the enemy vessels at anchorage.
2. Training for night battles.
3. Anti-aircraft training.
4. Radar fire control training.
5. Use of starshell in night firing"

"Q. Did you have a special radar set for fire control, a special radar used only for that purpose?
A. I think there was no special array for radar fire control because the radar fire control was yet not well developed; there was no particular confidence in it. They got up to the stage when they could barely use radar for firing, no further than that ."

USSBS: Interrogations of Japanese Officials -- 35/149

This second answer may explain why Yamato's shooting appears to have been so erratic at Samar where the visibility was extremely poor due to smoke and haze. Being "barely able to use radar for firing" at this stage of the war does not argue for a highly trained, or experienced, gunnery crew. Admiral Koyanagi also stated that the Yamato's crew was badly fatiqued due to being at general quarters for long periods of time. This would tend to seriously degrade the labor intensive Japanese FC process.

Well, have it your way, then. But if you don't understand the technical concepts of fire control, you can't very well make a valid comparison of the fire control systems aboard the Yamato and Bismarck. Suffice it to say, some way of determining the plane of the horizon has to be provided, the way each navy did so is important to understanding the relative strengths and weaknesses of each FC system.

 

I would point out that battleship AP shells were the one thing that neither the Musashi nor the Yamato were ever subjected to to, So no, there is no evidence that their armor would fail under shell impacts. There is the fact that Musashi's main battery director was knocked out at Sibuyan Sea due to either an aerial bomb or torpedo impact which does not argue well for the invulnerability of Yamato under Bismarck's shell fire.

Nobody is arguing the Iowa's ROF. I'm not even sure how Yamato's ROF became an issue. It's unlikely that either the Yamato or Bismarck would be able to sustain maximum ROF for any length of time, especially if they remained at long range.

Well, when your friend publishes his data I'd be interested in seeing it. I have corresponded with one researcher who suggests that Yamato may actually have hit one of the Japanese cruisers. At this point, any hits by Yamato seem to be in the realm of speculation.

Well, if you have some argument that Yamato's gunnery was on par with other ships, I'd be interested in reading it.

My understanding was that all (or most) of the US fast battleships were commissioned with RPC. Are you saying the early ones weren't?

Yeah that's why they said in their report; "Japanese stable verticals and gyro work for fire control seem to be vastly inferior."

The NTM did say, however, that: "....in general, their surface fire is, there fore, not much inferior to that of other navies."

This, of course, completely ignores the lack of RPC, and the requirement for seven human operators in most Japanese FC systems, with all the attendant problems of human error and imprecision.

 

It seems that the Iowas were the first ones to carry full RPC outfits as commissioned. SoDak may have been the first one to have a completed RPC system, after her 1943 time in Brooklyn.

The CNC deck is certainly thick enough to initiate a fuze. Over the citadel, the D steel is laid in laminations as thick as 38mm, which is enough to do the job. Whether or not the fuze acts in time to explode the shell while still aboard--that would depend on the specific trajectory. For Bismarck, the plating is more generally thicker beyond the main belt, but Yamato's shells have much greater delays. Both ships could experience through-and-throughs, though in Bismarck's case, the damage would be aggravated by the fragments of intermediate armor.

From memory, Kongo once had a director or her main RF disabled by machine gun fire.

 

A shell falling at 30 deg is much more likely to hit a battleship's deck than her side. There is a good illustration of this in Friedman's book on battleship design.

 

If I understand the data correctly, Musashi's was knocked out just by shock, no projectiles, fragments, or splinters hit her director at Sibuyan Sea.

 

That's quite a straw man you constructed there. I never argued said that and I wish you would quit putting words in my mouth.

 

I see no reason to put more weight on your words than I have those of a fair number of published authors. So unless you can back that up with some references I'll just consider it your opinion and worth no more than that of most other posters

Straw man. I didn't say anything about decks.

??? Care to tell me why they won't have much chance of striking her belt at 30 degrees? Looks to me like if you only count deck and side hits 20% plus will be side hits not all those will hit the belt but then some of the deck hits well as well. Based on other the last time I worked out the math to check out one of your assumptions show me the figures.

Checking out the TROM at: Imperial Battleships
I see that prior to being operational there were deficienies note also that those were while firing at a range of 23 miles. So no proof either way. I also noted the following:

I believe you stated earlier that her amor deficiencies were not fixed.

Even live fire with sub caliber or secondaries might not be mentioned in her TROM.